The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Committees: Questions of Order/Procedure

Mr Speaker: At the sitting of the Assembly on 2October MrDallat asked for a ruling on matters which he described as having taken place during the meeting of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on Friday 29 September. I have looked into these matters and have no reason to believe that any breach of Standing Orders took place. However, I report this as a matter of fact and not as a ruling from the Chair. Indeed, my only ruling on the matter raised by MrDallat is that it would not be proper for the Speaker to rule on matters which take place in Committees. At a number of points in StandingOrders mention is made of a Chairperson’s role in exercising the same powers as the Speaker with regard to managing business before the Committee. Ordinarily, I would expect that this also extends to exercising judgement on upholding Standing Orders.
Members may, of course, refer matters of order to me at any time — not just in the Chamber. I will endeavour to advise them as best I can. Members may also feel free to raise matters by way of motions, refer matters to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, or take whatever is the proper course in any particular dispute. However, in some situations the problem is simply that Members do not like the outcome rather than how it was arrived at. That, of course, is not a matter of order. That is a matter of politics, and Members have to take responsibility for such matters.
I hope that this helps to clarify the situation.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: Second Stage

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (NIA 1/00) be agreed.
The Bill will make provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to that made for Great Britain by the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000. It is therefore a parity measure. There has always been parity in social security legislation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; that is how it should be. People in Northern Ireland pay the same national insurance contributions and taxes as people in Great Britain and should receive the same benefits. Parity also enables us in Northern Ireland to use the computer system in Great Britain for both child support and social security. That is more cost-effective than setting up separate computer systems here. This is a parity measure not only in the content of the legislation but also in the timing of its implementation. New provisions have always been introduced here at the same time as they have been introduced in Great Britain, and that arrangement should continue.
Part I of the Bill deals with the reform of the child support system. I am determined that my Department will do everything that it can to ensure that children get the best possible start in life. The primary responsibility for the support of children lies with parents — and that means both parents, whether they live together or apart. My Department is responsible for ensuring that, if parents live apart, there is an effective system of child support.
The failings of the current system, with its complex formula, are well documented, and I will mention them only briefly. It can be months before a decision is made and, as a consequence, the Child Support Agency (CSA) spends too much of its time on chasing information and not enough on chasing up missing payments. The result, not surprisingly, is a system that fails children. The Child Support Agency faces formidable problems. It is required to administer a hugely complex formula that parents do not understand. Parents with care go for months without seeing any maintenance, and, because of the delays, non-resident parents, usually fathers, begin with large unanticipated maintenance debts. Faced with such a cliff to climb, some of them choose not to pay up at all. The income support for parents with care was reduced pound for pound, so parents see the main purpose of the Child Support Agency as being to reduce benefits rather than to ensure meaningful support for their children. Such a situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Going back to the courts is not the answer. The failure of the courts to deliver a fair system led to the introduction of the child support scheme in the first place. The measures in the Bill are designed to remove the obstacles in the current scheme and to give the Child Support Agency the powers it needs to deal with parents who seek to avoid their responsibilities. Under the new system, mothers and their children — and it is usually mothers, though not exclusively — will get what they are due and get it quickly.
The present system is also failing those parents who live apart from their children but want to support them. The agency often needs so much information to work out what payment is due that it can be months before a decision is made. As a result, parents can face huge debts, through no fault of their own. The reforms will change all that, and as a result, many children who miss out today will receive help.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
The first objective is to address the complexity inherent in the current scheme. In my opinion setting a fixed amount would be grossly unfair. Children are entitled to a share in their parents’ income, and it would be wrong to allow those who are earning a good deal of money to pay a flat rate when they could well afford to pay more. The Bill introduces a simpler system, which will be easy for parents to understand and for the Child Support Agency to administer. Under the new arrangements, non-resident parents will pay a flat rate percentage of their net income — after tax, national insurance and pension contributions —15% for one child, 20% for two children and 25% for three or more children. Ready reckoner, easy-to-read booklets containing that information will be widely available in post offices and libraries. So, even in the case of a couple who have broken up, a parent will know what maintenance he or she may be expected to pay and can make arrangements for it. This approach will mean that decisions can be made in days rather than months, getting the money flowing faster.
The second objective is to ensure that children see the benefit of the maintenance paid. Currently, families on income support or income-based jobseeker’s allowance get no benefit from the payment of maintenance. As part of the new arrangement, if both parents are on benefit, £5 will be deducted from the non-resident parent’s benefit and paid to the parent with care towards the support of the child. If the non-resident parent is in work and the parent with care is on benefit, there will be no reduction of benefit for the first £10 of maintenance. I am sure Members will agree that it is right for people to have an incentive to co- operate with the CSA and that they should receive some benefit from their co-operation.
The third objective is to provide the CSA with the means to ensure that parents cannot avoid their responsibilities. The Bill will simplify the present bureaucracy so that the CSA will need to know only who the absent parent is and how much that person earns; it will do the calculation. The amount will be 15%, 20% or 25% of income depending on the number of children and whether those children are in a second family. The CSA can say that this is the amount that the non-resident parent is due to pay. That parent should enter into the agreement immediately, and if he does not, or does not stick to it, the money will be deducted from his wages. There will be new powers to tackle those who continue to try to avoid those responsibilities. Parents who misrepresent or withhold information from the CSA will face fines of up to £1,000.
The agency will also have new powers to appoint specialist inspectors, allowing it to gather information more quickly and effectively than now. Parents who deliberately delay paying money for their children will face a penalty of up to 25% of the money due. The amount of child support maintenance arrears will remain due, and a financial penalty will be imposed. The penalty will not be maintenance and will not be passed on to the parent with care. Persistent non-payers will still face jail, but in addition the courts will have the power to take away their driving licences.
There will also be powers to get access to the Inland Revenue’s records of a self-employed person who refuses to tell the CSA how much he or she is earning. Clearly the agency will not want to do that routinely, but it needs to be able to take action to stop self-employed, non-resident parents living an opulent life and making no contribution towards the upkeep of their children. That will stop under the new system.
At the same time the Bill will allow maintenance payments made by a non-resident parent before which the assessment of child support maintenance to be offset against arrears in respect of the period before the non-resident parent was notified of the maintenance calculation. This means that a non-resident parent who has been paying towards the upkeep of his or her children will not be faced with a mountain of debt by the time his or her maintenance has been worked out.
The Bill will also close a loophole that allows some fathers to delay an assessment of their liability by denying paternity. In future, if the father is married to the mother at any time between the conception and the birth of the child, and if he is named on the birth certificate or refuses to take a DNA test, the burden will be on him to prove that he is not the father.
These reforms pave the way for an improved service from the CSA. Nevertheless, it is essential to avoid the failures of the current system by introducing reforms too quickly. The new scheme requires significant changes in the way that the agency works, including new computer systems. It is crucial that the reforms are right from day one in order to build parents’ confidence. To ensure that the new system beds in properly, it will be introduced for new cases first, so that it can be up and running with a manageable caseload. I expect this stage of the reform to be introduced by April 2002. Existing cases will be transferred at a later date, once my Department is sure that the new system is working well. Although all existing cases will be transferred to the new system at a single date, the change to the new rates will be implemented in stages so that no parent will suffer a significant drop in income overnight.
All these changes will bring about an easily understood system for child support — one that is fair to parents with care, to non-resident parents and, most important of all, to the children.
Part II of the Bill deals with pensions reform. Projections show that by the year 2050 one in three pensioners will be dependent on means-tested benefits if nothing is done now. Many older people are reluctant to claim such benefits, and it is essential therefore to put pensions on a sound, sustainable and affordable footing for the future. Of course, everyone who can save for retirement ought to do so, but many people, through no fault of their own, are not able to do that.
The Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provided for the introduction of stakeholder pension schemes. Due to be introduced in April 2001, these are designed to give moderate earners who do not have access to an occupational pension scheme, or for whom a personal pension scheme is unsuitable, the chance to get a funded pension. The reforms in this Bill go further. It contains provisions that will help low-paid earners, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records. These groups have the least opportunity to save for retirement. Generally speaking, even if they are working they do not have sufficient earnings to make worthwhile savings through a personal pension.
The state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) does not do much for them, simply because it is earnings related. A person on low earnings does not receive much on retirement and is forced to rely on income-related benefits, such as income support. Too many people are headed for a life on low income in old age because they are unable to build up a decent second pension. Women, on whom the role of carer falls most often, are especially disadvantaged. The reform of SERPS by way of the state second pension will, in some cases, triple the amount of additional pensions to which low earners will be entitled. For example, under SERPS someone earning £6,000 per year after a lifetime of employment gets £14 per week on top of the basic state pension.
Under the state second pension that sum will rise to £54 per week — £40 per week extra for that low earner. No one can say that this is not a substantial improvement on the present position. It is right to say that the state second pension will take a long time to mature as pensions, by their very nature, take some years to build up. However, because of the way in which the state second pension is structured, people will begin to see improvements very shortly after it is introduced — probably in 2002. Many will see a substantial difference in the amount of pension that they will receive as a result of these changes. For example, by 2025 a couple, one of whom is on low earnings while the other spends half of his or her time caring, will get £30 more because of the operation of the state second pension.
While the introduction of the state second pension will have the greatest benefit for low earners — someone on £6,000 per year will be £40 per week better off — even someone on £15,000 a year will be £17 per week better off. It will take 14 years for that person’s income to fall to the level of the minimum income guarantee. Any fair-minded person looking at the system will see that the state second pension is infinitely better than the present system because it will allow people on low earnings, carers and disabled people to build up substantial pensions. That would not otherwise be the case.
This system is not complex. It recognises that people earning less than about £9,500 per year will never earn enough to go into a funded pension of their own. The state second pension also gives disabled people and carers a pension that they would not otherwise get. This is a substantial improvement.
The extra help which these groups need will be provided by reforming SERPS through the introduction of the state second pension. The extra help will be provided by changing the way in which the additional pension is calculated.
First, everyone earning above the lower earning limit but less than £9,500 in any year will be treated, for the purpose of calculating their additional pension, as if they had earned £9,500 in that year. Secondly, the rate at which the additional pension accrues on this figure of £9,500 will double to 40%. This higher accrual rate will apply to earnings of up to £9,500 for all earners. To ensure that the extra help is targeted towards those on lower earnings, the extra benefits of the state second pension will taper away on earnings between £9,500 and £21,600. Those earning more than £21,600 will receive exactly what they do now under SERPS. Low earners — those earning under £9,500 — gain the most. Someone earning £6,000 will see his additional pension go up by 400%. Moderate earners gain on a sliding scale. The position of high earners is unchanged.
For the first time, carers and the long-term disabled with broken work records will receive help to build an additional pension. The state second pension will treat them as if they had earned £9,500 in each relevant year, giving about £1 per week in extra pension for each qualifying year.
The second stage of the state second pension will be a flat-rate scheme. It will be introduced once stakeholder pensions have become established, and it will only apply to those who have a significant part of their working life remaining. In stage two, everyone will be treated as if they had earned £9,500. This will provide a strong incentive for moderate and higher earners to contract out, as rebates will remain earnings-related. This is a further step in encouraging those able to do so to provide for their retirement.
The Bill also reforms the rules governing occupational and personal pensions to encourage employers to provide access to pension schemes for their employees. It extends the jurisdiction of the Pensions Ombudsman to allow him to investigate disputes between trustees of schemes. It also extends the role of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority in relation to the winding-up of schemes and allows it to make its register of disqualified trustees available to the public for scrutiny. It provides for combined pension forecasts, to allow everyone the opportunity to get a better idea of the pension rights they have earned from both the state scheme and their private pensions.
The Bill makes a number of technical pension amendments — for example, to facilitate the calculation of transfer values for sharing SERPS on divorce. Part III deals with a number of social security matters, including sanctions for people who fail to comply with the terms of a community sentence imposed by a court (a probation order, a community service order or a combination order); the alignment of inspectors’ powers across the benefit system and child support; and the extension of the decision- making and appeals arrangements introduced last year for other social security benefits and child support to housing benefit and discretionary housing payments.
I shall deal first with the sanctions for those who fail to comply with the terms of a community sentence. Failure to comply with these terms demonstrates an offender’s unwillingness to make reparation for the offences committed, yet many of these offenders continue to claim benefits from the state as a right. The rest of society has to pick up the bill for those benefits. The provisions in the Bill will change the conditions for receiving benefits by linking benefit payment to compliance with community sentences. The courts and the probation service will warn offenders at the outset that they will lose benefit if they do not comply. Offenders will be warned after one unacceptable failure to attend. This will send a clear message to offenders that rights have to be matched by responsibilities. There will be no sanction imposed if those responsibilities are taken seriously and offenders comply with the terms of their sentence.
The corresponding provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 will be piloted in several areas in England and Wales. These pilots will be fully evaluated before they are implemented in Great Britain. Although I do not intend to run a similar pilot exercise in Northern Ireland, I can assure Members that the Northern Ireland provisions will only be implemented at the same time as the corresponding provisions are applied fully throughout Great Britain.
At the moment there are piecemeal provisions to deal with the appointment of inspectors and their powers. The provisions in the Bill set out clearly the purposes for which the powers can be used and contain safeguards to prevent their abuse. The categories of people from whom information can be obtained are extended to take account of modern commercial practices, such as people who are self-employed or employed on a franchise basis. This extension allows for closer working between the Social Security Agency and the Housing Executive.
The measures in the Bill which relate to decision- making and appeals for housing benefit will bring procedures for that benefit into line with the procedures introduced last year in relation to child support and all other social security benefits. Clearly defined procedures are provided for changing decisions on housing benefit entitlement, and they place greater emphasis on claimants’ responsibilities for exercising their rights promptly and ensuring that information held about their claims is correct.
These provisions will also bring housing benefit into the mainstream appeals system. There will be a right of appeal to an appeals tribunal, administered by the Appeals Service, against the decision of a relevant authority and a further right of appeal on a point of law to a social security commissioner. Housing benefits review boards, whose decisions can only be challenged by judicial review, will be abolished.
The Bill also provides a power for the Housing Executive to make discretionary housing payments to provide people who are entitled to housing benefit with additional financial assistance with housing costs. These payments are designed to help alleviate exceptional hardship when housing costs are above those met by housing benefit. They will not be part of housing benefit and will be paid in addition to any housing benefit entitlement. However, they will be cash limited so the overall financial constraint must be a factor in the decision of the Housing Executive in any individual case. The conditions and circumstances in which these payments may be considered will be set out in regulations.
The Bill is an important step in the ongoing process of welfare reform, which has as its guiding principle "work for those who can, security for those who cannot". Child support will be reformed so that it will deal fairly with parents and, above all, with children. The pensions reforms will be aimed at the low-paid, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records, and the provisions dealing with benefit sanctions will be fair to people who meet their responsibilities and equally tough on those who are not prepared to do so. The Bill provides an opportunity to build a fair society.

Mr Fred Cobain: As Chairperson of the Social Development Committee I welcome this Bill and the long-overdue reforms it brings to the child support system. I also welcome the Bill’s introduction of the second stage of pension reforms, which will help low-paid earners, carers and long-term disabled people with broken work records. For the first time these people will receive help to build an additional pension. I welcome the Bill’s strengthening of the link between the benefits people get and their responsibilities to society.
The first part of this Bill brings in much needed reform of the current child support system. The failure of the present system, with its ludicrously complex formulae, is well known and has been very widely reported. In June of this year I visited the Child Support Agency to see the problems it faces in trying to cope with the current system. Because of the complexities, it can take months before a decision is made on someone’s child support.
This is a scandalous situation, particularly in this day and age when we are dealing with people who are already on the margins of society. It is a totally unacceptable position. Clearly there are problems with a system that operates in such a fashion, and there is a need to sort this out once and for all. We are dealing with a situation in which a Government agency is trying to administer a formula so complex that many of its own staff have difficulty in getting to grips with its mechanics. What chance have ordinary people to understand the complexities of such a system?
Parents with care needs go for months without receiving any maintenance. Non-resident parents are often faced with large unanticipated debt. Not surprisingly, the result is that we have a system that is totally and utterly failing one of the most vulnerable groups in society — our children.
While I fully agree that it is the responsibility of both parents to support children whether they live together or not, nonetheless there is a responsibility on each of us in the Assembly to make sure that an efficient, practical system of child support exists. We must therefore use every means at our disposal and make every effort to provide a more secure, stable future for our children. For that reason I support this Bill.
I welcome the Bill’s introduction of a much simpler assessment system, making it easier for parents to understand and for the Child Support Agency to administer. I also welcome the introduction of a flat rate percentage liability as a means of simplifying an otherwise complex, scandalous and laborious assessment procedure. I have no doubt that this new system will make it easier for parents to understand and know precisely the amount of maintenance they can expect to pay or receive. I am looking forward to seeing assessments being made in a matter of days rather than the ludicrous number of months they take now.
Another aspect of the current child support system, which greatly concerns the Committee and me, is that families on benefit get absolutely no help from the payment of maintenance. This is a scarcely unbelievable and totally unacceptable. It is my understanding that almost 70% of the Northern Ireland live load are income support cases. This is directly hitting the people who are most in need of help. People who are already facing difficulties do not need to be further burdened by a system that promises to deliver a fair and more efficient means of child maintenance. The reality is that it delivers no such practical help, and it is these people we must try to help. If the system is to be changed it must be changed to provide as much assistance as possible to these people. The Committee and I therefore welcome the introduction of a child maintenance premium, which will mean that parents with care needs on income support will see real and practical benefits from this new system.
While I welcome this Child Support, Pensions and Society Security Bill, I am also concerned that the Social Development Committee will not be given its due place and the opportunity to scrutinise in depth the mechanics of the Bill. I do accept that this legislation will simplify the benefits system in relation to pensions and social security as well as child support, but I still have grave concerns about its accelerated passage. I fully understand the need to maintain parity between social security systems in Northern Ireland and Great Britain — not only in legislation, but also in timing and implementation — and I strongly advocate that this be an exception rather than the rule. I also advocate that the Social Development Committee — and any other Statutory Committee of the Assembly for that matter — be given its rightful place in scrutinising in detail legislation that will have a direct impact on the people whom we represent.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Second Stage of this Bill. The main issue for me concerns pensioners. Because of the annual increase in prices and because pensions are not kept in line with the annual wage increases, many pensioners find themselves caught in the poverty trap with their incomes being continuously eroded. They are, in fact, experiencing a reduction in the real buying power of their pensions.
Many pensioners lose out on the minimum income guarantee because they receive an occupational pension, which is a disincentive to save — those who have saved for their old age find they gain nothing from extra pension income. The Government’s publicity campaign for the minimum income guarantee resulted in 5,000 claims being initiated this year. Of that number, 4,000 claim forms were returned of which 50% were successful, with the average payment awarded being £23·50 per week. This campaign was successful in some respects, but it should be ongoing. There should be a mechanism in place whereby when people are contacted prior to retirement with a pension forecast, all aspects of their circumstances are taken into account including the minimum income guarantee, so that they can get an overall picture of their personal needs. An accurate assessment could then be made and advice given on all the benefits to which they may be entitled. This should be done automatically.
The Social Security Agency should look at ways of improving its service to pensioners at a local level. There should be an earnings disregard for those on occupational pensions similar to the disregard for people on income support where the first £15 of earnings is disregarded before the benefit entitlement is affected. There should be an increase in tax allowance for pensioners with occupational pensions. The pensioner credit is due to be in place by 2003. This means that when people apply for their retirement pension assessment, the minimum income guarantee will be assessed at the same time, but this will not alleviate many of the problems with which pensioners are faced and the poverty that they find themselves in now.
I commend the proposal for a state second pension in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which will make provision for an additional pension for carers, the long-term disabled and people on a low income. This legislation makes pension provision for a section of the community which has been ignored for a very long time. There will be particular benefits for women as these are the people who have given up their employment prospects to care for an elderly or disabled relative. For a long time they were disenfranchised because they did not have the necessary national insurance contributions to enable them to claim a pension and had to apply for social security benefit as their source of income.
There is an initiative in Britain called Better Government for Older People in which there is a cross- agency approach to retirement, to which pensioners have some input. There are eight pilot areas in England at present, and I ask the Minister to consider a similar approach here as it would be of benefit to pensioners in Northern Ireland.
I turn to the proposed changes to child support which mean that there will be a similar method of assessing an absent parent’s income. It will be a percentage of the net income, and the amount will depend on the number of dependent children and whether the absent parent has a second family. This should help to reduce the unacceptable delays, which have already been mentioned, in assessing claims for maintenance. I know of parents with care who have had to wait up to a year before their cases were properly assessed, and in that time these families have had to rely on benefits to make ends meet. This is totally unacceptable. Children have to be fed and clothed, and they cannot wait for six or 12 months. None of us can. The parent with care should not have to wait for a long period before the maintenance payments start. The Bill states that more resources for the Child Support Agency will be devoted to ensuring that maintenance is paid and is paid on time. I would like to see a proper level of enforcement to make sure that absent parents make their payments on time. This would reduce the hardship for their families.
For those families dependent on benefits such as income support or income-based jobseeker’s allowance who previously did not benefit from contributions from the absent parents, the introduction of child maintenance payments will mean that they will gain an extra £10 per week on top of their benefit. I commend this support. It is long overdue and will alleviate some of the hardship caused, in particular, to single parent families.
Finally, I ask the Minister to review the delivery and management of all benefits for which his Department is responsible to ensure that those who have not been claiming benefits to which they are entitled have better access to those benefits in the future. This will help take them out of the poverty trap that many of them find themselves in.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I welcome the speech made by my hon Friend and also the legislation before the House. I congratulate the Minister on escaping the wrath of Mr Cobain, who was ordered by his party Leader to "have a go" at Mr Morrow during the party conference. If this is what was meant by "having a go" at someone, it is, to quote a prominent politician, "like being savaged by a dead sheep".
I particularly welcome the reconsideration of how the Child Support Agency operates. Those of us who have been in politics for many years have never found an agency more inclined to act like the Gestapo than to help people.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know if your wife opens your letters or you hers, but one of my constituents was opening her husband’s letters one day, as was usual, when she was met with an accusation from the Child Support Agency that her spouse was responsible for a child. You can guess how this affected the woman — it almost caused her to have a terrible nervous breakdown. When her husband contacted me I spoke to the agency bosses, from whom I had a terrible time extracting an apology. It was only after the man was able to prove that the child had nothing to do with him, that he was the wrong man altogether, that they got an apology. But this happened over the course of a month, during which time the woman and her family went through a veritable hell.
I am therefore glad that, at long last, it will be possible to have these matters resolved in an amicable way and without the high-handed tactics employed by the agency, and I could give the House more illustrations of this problem.
We would all like to see more done for those in need, and particularly for the senior citizens, in support of whom I hope action will soon be taken. This particular legislation is a definite step forward. I sympathise with Ms Lewsley who called earlier for an inquiry into how benefits are paid. There is room for an overhaul of pension payment methods and for more effort to be made to contact those entitled to payment. Some people in Northern Ireland still do not want support from the state and they need to have the benefits system explained. Money is set aside for those in need, and claimants are therefore merely receiving the benefits they deserve. I would welcome an investigation into this matter by the Minister. This may require a very expensive inquiry which will diminish the amount of money that he has in his pocket, but this is an issue to which we must pay attention and apply ourselves.
I welcome the proposals. I hope that they will be put into effect as quickly as possible, and I hope that the priority will be to make money available to people with maximum speed. If we do this, the proposed legislation that we are discussing today will be very beneficial.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ms Lewsley and Dr Paisley have pointed out that the Bill is a complex piece of legislation. I want to touch on something that the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee mentioned earlier: we need to recognise that, because of its accelerated passage, the Committee will not get a chance to consider the Bill in detail. The Minister dealt with that last week during the accelerated passage motion. Though I want to give the Bill a guarded welcome as well, this point needs to be noted.
I also welcome the Minister’s statement about the child support section of the Bill. I agree that the present system is not only failing children, but failing parents too. We have all seen and read of cases where the Child Support Agency has hounded people to the extent that severe stress has been experienced and lives have been taken.
This is a complex and very confusing formula. People feel very intimidated when they are going down the road of child support. As the Minister pointed out, it takes months for applications to be processed. I welcome his commitment to cutting down the waiting time.
I have concerns about DNA testing when a father has to disprove parenthood. Will the Minister give an assurance, mainly to fathers, that any DNA sample taken will be destroyed? We are all aware that people are concerned about DNA testing and about the retention of samples. I want to be able to assure fathers that the DNA sample will be destroyed at that point.
Another concern is that the Child Support Agency has tried to change its system a number of times, and this has not worked. I shall be paying close attention to the outcome of this Bill and look forward to seeing the system simplified.
The Bill provides that non-resident parents will pay less. That will mean a loss of income for a parent who is caring for a child. We are told that the level of payments is expected to rise. Is that simply an expectation, or will the level definitely rise?
While I give a guarded welcome to the Bill, I hope that we will not find later on that the Committee should have looked more closely at its provisions. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Ford: The Minister went through the Bill in some detail, but he more or less told us that this was the Second Stage of a parity Bill on social security and that there was not much for us to talk about. That is something which we need to be very careful about given what we mean by devolution in the Chamber. A number of Members have spoken about Part I (child support) and Part II (pensions). While I have some doubt about how a Bill of 133 pages is going to simplify the system, we have to accept the maintenance of direct parity in social security matter across the UK.
There do seem to be some improvements, although I suspect not as many as other Members have suggested this morning. Can the Minister explain how Part IV — specifically clauses 65 and 66 dealing with paternity tests — relates to the Family Reform Bill which will come before the Assembly shortly?
There is a major issue in Part III which means that we need to start to consider what parity means for us. There is no point in our having an Assembly with legislative powers if all we do is slavishly ape everything that is done in Westminster. We have to consider what the most appropriate system is for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not true that we have the same tax regime and the same social benefits across the UK. Look at local taxation. We still pay rates. Scotland, and subsequently England and Wales, had the poll tax and now they have the council tax. It is not true that we pay the same rate of VAT; we may pay the same rate, but, given the higher energy costs, our constituents pay significantly more than people across the water do. Let us not think that we are all paying the same taxes, because we are paying different taxes.
In the wider field of social benefits, major changes are already being implemented across the UK. English university students have a system of loans and tuition fees. Scotland is already seeing the benefits of the Cubie report. The Welsh partnership programme, announced last week, suggests changes similar to those included in Cubie. What do we have? We have student loans and tuition fees and possibly some change, and what do we do? We waste time in this Chamber on endless votes of confidence instead of discussing the issues that ought to concern us.
The issue of parity is a very simple one. Parity means that we pay the same income tax, corporation tax, national insurance and excise duties and receive the same mainstream social benefits. The wider fields of social benefits and taxation are different, and for that reason we should consider this Bill in detail and examine its provisions.
I particularly want to look at clauses 53 to 57, which introduce a fairly squalid set of changes to benefit regulations. These are the provisions for what is elegantly termed the "loss of benefit for breach of a community order". There is no evidence that these provisions would benefit anyone. Offenders who are on a minimum living income would have that income reduced. This is an attack on claimants in general. If people are going to breach community orders, probation orders, community service orders and so forth, we need sanctions, but the provisions here are illiberal. For some Members the word "illiberal" does not necessarily mean that something is bad. These provisions are totally counter- productive. What happens to the young lad who is on probation because he broke into a house down the street and stole an old lady’s handbag? He loses his benefits, so he goes into the next street and steals another old lady’s handbag. We need to give this issue serious consideration.
The Minister said, and the notes say, that these provisions will not be introduced until the results of pilot schemes in England and Wales are known. They should not stand part of our legislation until the Minister can give Members evidence that they will work. We should not simply ape Westminster.
It is a pity that there will be no formal Committee Stage. It is also a pity that Mr Cobain is not in his place to hear what I am about to say. There is a case for the Committee to examine these clauses, whether or not there is a formal Committee Stage. It would be good to hear the views of the Probation Board, the National Association of Probation Officers and others. I would be happy to give my views to the Committee: latitude is available, and we should take advantage of it.
I have not read the entire Westminster proceedings on this Bill but I have seen the part of the House of Lords Hansard where Earl Russell and Helena, Baroness Kennedy led a major attack on these provisions. It ended in compromise, which is the best we can expect from an unelected Chamber. The compromise is, I think, that in clause 53(1)(a) the words "without reasonable excuse" were inserted in the Bill. That may be the best we can get from the House of Lords, but it is totally inadequate. If Conrad Russell and Helena Kennedy are in one corner on a human-rights issue, and Jack Straw is in the other, I know where I stand, and it is certainly not with Jack Straw.
Devolution does not mean that we have to ape Westminster in every respect. We are here to work for the benefit of our constituents, to consider what is best for society in Northern Ireland and not to follow automatically things we do not need to follow automatically. We have moved on from the days when integrated Ulster Unionists could steer us all in that direction.
This a grubby and offensive change in legislation. It is an example of New Labour in its worst Poujadist mood, playing to the gallery of the cheap popular press in London. Having accepted accelerated passage, we have no choice at Second Stage but to accept the principle of this Bill. However, my Colleagues and I will seek to amend it at Consideration Stage.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I am also alarmed that the Committee allowed this accelerated passage. There are major issues in this Bill, and, while I welcome some of its provisions, David Ford is correct in raising concerns at this stage. It would have taken only one Member to stop accelerated passage, and it was indeed unfortunate that those of us who are concerned were not in the Chamber to raise our voices at the time. However, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Social Development Committee should have demanded that the Bill go through their Committee, for there are huge concerns about the human rights implications of the current proposals.
Clause 16, which suggests the removal of driving licences for failure to comply with child support maintenance, is extremely prohibitive. I note that the Minister suggests that this may take some time to process. I should, however, like to tell Members of my experience of what happens with child support.
Women in Northern Ireland do not separate from their partners lightly. However, often as a result of extensive abuse and violence against them and their children, they may finally come to the conclusion that it is time to leave their partners. In doing so in the past they would automatically have been entitled to income support. However, it is now the case that they must name their partners and, when pressed to do so, women become very frightened. When they have named those people some of them have had even more violence visited upon them.
I welcome the fact that the onus will be on the Department to track down the parent who should be maintaining a child or children but refuses to do so. If the Department will be taking on that responsibility — as it is increasingly recognised it should — we should welcome that, for it will lessen the other parent’s fear. However, if this individual’s driving licence is removed, I have no doubt that he will blame the partner — most likely the person with whom he cohabited— for having sought support for the children. I am extremely concerned that women may be placed in even greater danger as a result of this.
My second concern is that removing an individual’s driving licence is extremely punitive; there must be other ways in which an absent parent can be made to take responsibility. He may lose his job as a consequence of having lost his driving licence, and if that happens, he will be less likely to be able to pay the support and more likely to end up on state benefits. I cannot for the life of me believe that no one thought that through in the first place. To lose one’s job has human rights’ implications, for the ability to work must be such a right. Many of us would not be able to work if we did not have our driving licences.
This is a huge concern, and I never thought that I would see the day when new Labour would introduce such a proposal. Indeed, this sounds more like a proposal that the most right-wing element of the Conservative Party would introduce to emulate the methods used to seek absent parents in the United States. The fact that this is part of draft legislation and that Members allowed it accelerated passage is of huge concern to me.
I welcome clause 21, which extends our jurisdiction in respect of those from whom we seek support. We know from the statistics that over 10% of those pursued are women, but the vast majority are male. In cases where the father leaves the country, it is very difficult to pursue him, and I am glad that the authorities will be able to do so if he is employed by a company registered under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.
I also welcome the variation orders, but I am not convinced that that will make the system simpler. I remember a cartoon where Andy Capp was saying something to Flo — actually, given the distribution of income within that household, it was probably poor old Flo who was saying it to Andy Capp: "First of all they told me I was deprived, then they told me I was underprivileged, then they told me I was disadvantaged. Now they tell me I am in need of income support and child support. I still do not have a dime, but I have one great vocabulary." That is exactly what we have done. We have simply addressed the language, the terminology, and, perhaps, a little bit of the complexity. It is still an extremely complex and time-consuming system. Having helped constituents pursue this, I know that from experience.
A better way to go about getting child support is through the clause that speaks of a child maintenance premium. The disadvantage in the past was that those who were entitled to support did not get it, because if they were originally on benefits it made no difference to them. As Patricia Lewsley pointed out, the fact that they now are entitled to a premium of £10 is a much better way of introducing proposals that increase incentives rather than threatening huge penalties.
I also welcome the pension reform proposals. For many years, we have campaigned for the low paid, the carers — predominantly women — and the long-term disabled, who were extremely disadvantaged by our pension system. The sharing of benefits under the state earnings related pension scheme (SERPS) is also to be welcomed. I note that that will be introduced in December 2000, while some of the other proposals will not be implemented for four to five years. This one will be introduced rather rapidly and will allow for the pension sharing of SERPS, in particular after divorce or annulment. That is something that women, who have suffered greatly through divorce, will be pleased to see.
I also welcome some of the proposals in Part III on social security, but I am extremely concerned about clauses 53 and 54, which remove benefits from those who breach orders, particularly community service orders and probation orders. I cannot believe that we are suggesting putting an increased onus on the very stressed and predominantly under-staffed probation service. We are asking it now to tell clients on probation who breach orders that they will no longer be entitled to benefits.
I see in the explanatory notes that it may not be all of their benefits — it may be part of their benefits, and it may be time-limited. Nonetheless, what advantage is this, as David Ford rightly pointed out? You take someone who is on benefits who has breached an order and make him destitute and homeless. I predict that undoubtedly anti-social behaviour will be the only outcome of that proposal. It is not sensible to suggest that someone who is on benefits should have those benefits partly removed.
I note that they are arguing that the jobseeker’s allowance and the joint claims can be addressed. I have enormous concerns, and I hope they are addressed. I ask the Minister to reassure me that if a person who breaks or breaches an order is married and has children, those children and his partner will not be made worse off as a consequence of his being denied part or all of his benefits.

Mr David Ervine: Does the Member see any potentially divisive issues between parents when liabilities are reduced on the basis of increased access?

Prof Monica McWilliams: Can the Member explain that?

Mr David Ervine: My understanding is that if a parent accepts children for a large number of overnight stays, his liability is decreased. That suggests to me that there is a financial measurement of access.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This is a difficult issue at the moment. I am currently dealing with a case in respect of one of my constituents who is in receipt of child benefit. There are, however, enormous difficulties between the two parents, because the partner has access to the child and may have a residence order. One of the parents — the one who gets the child benefit — is arguing that she is the main custodial parent. There are huge disputes over that. This legislation will undoubtedly increase that type of dispute. I hope it does not. I would like to think that it will make matters simpler.
Undoubtedly the Member is referring to the child support part of those provisions as opposed to the social security part. I was commenting on the fact that a criminal offence — which a breach of an order is — will automatically lead to social security benefits being stopped, yet people have rights in terms of income. There are enormous difficulties with that.
The Minister tells us that this scheme will be piloted in seven areas of England and Wales. I suggest to him that it might have been better to carry out the pilot exercises first, and once these had been completed, monitored and evaluated, proposals for legislation could have been introduced. The Minister has no idea whether this will work. This is the first time I have come across a situation where it has been suggested that something be piloted, after it is included in legislation. My experience of social policy tells me that you normally carry out a study, do the research based on the findings and recommendations of the study and then introduce proposals for policy or law.
The Government have jumped the gun. They say they will wait until the evaluation comes out, but why are they saying that on the one hand, while on the other making the proposals here before the pilot exercises have been completed? Baroness Hollis at Westminster hopes that after those pilot exercises are completed, Northern Ireland will simply follow suit. I simply hope that Northern Ireland will do no such thing.
Finally, had this gone to the Committee stage we might have heard from the Northern Ireland Social Security Advisory Committee, one of whose members sits on the UK Social Security Advisory Committee. I have no doubt that Prof Eithne McLaughlin would have had something very serious to say about the consequences of this scheme for Northern Ireland.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: So far as child support is concerned, the Minister is quite right to describe the present system as being made up of a set of hugely complex formulas. It has created great difficulties for all involved, and not least for the staff of the Department, who have had to spend their time working in areas which were obscure and difficult to follow, and which led to a great degree of job dissatisfaction and resentment. There is no one keener than the Department to see improvements and reforms in the system. I have no doubt that what is being suggested will help. However, I am not certain, just like Ms McWilliams, whether it will make the impact that we would all like to see. A number of areas remain cause for concern. We will watch the situation and monitor it as it develops.
There is the issue of assessment, in particular. We need to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Department will take a sympathetic and sensible approach to the areas of assessment where difficulties arise as well as others that have already been so ably pointed out about driving licence removal, et cetera.
I urge the Minister and his Department to be cautious in respect of people who are on irregular or seasonal incomes and whose net income is assessed. During those periods when they are at their lowest income level, they may be unable to meet their hire purchase or mortgage obligations. Because the outworkings of the system are done on a net basis, these people may be disadvantaged and could be in grave difficulty. I ask the Minister, particularly on this issue, to assure us that some sympathy and sense will be employed in the outworkings of the system to ensure that such people are not disadvantaged. I am unclear about how this could be done, but there needs to be a sympathetic approach. I have some experience in this area, particularly with parents who are willing to pay and work with the system but who, because of their income irregularities, cannot do so at certain times without impinging on their established commitments.
Many comments were made about accelerated passage. All of us, including myself — a member of the Committee — share the concerns that were voiced. There are many different aspects to this package; some parts of it are very good and some are urgent and need to be implemented immediately. We are torn, however, between the need to implement changes for the benefit of those affected and the need to be cautious and to examine the details that have caused concern here today.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that the Department, at least here in Northern Ireland, will ensure that any information that goes out to the public — to the people on the ground — is presented in an understandable manner. That could be applied to all his Department’s activities, but it is particularly important in respect of information on this topic. Plain English is a major requirement here. Even the explanatory notes outlining these changes are difficult to read; I guarantee that any Member would have to read some sections three or four times just to begin to make sense of them. What about the people on the ground? What are they going to think of such convoluted language? Please let there be some common sense here; please produce information that people can understand.
I also welcome the proposals in the Bill for the creation of an appeals system for housing benefit. This is to be greatly welcomed, because the previous system was totally inappropriate and unacceptable. One issue that we have been concerned about for some time is to do with instances where a magistrate is appointed as chairmen of an appeal board. This goes across the Department. Is there not a conflict of interest between being a chairman of an appeal board and later serving in a court of law when the same applicant may appear before him? The Department should ensure that this does not occur in order to protect all concerned — including the magistrate.
I also welcome the reforms to the structure of the pension scheme. I hope that when the outworkings for these are produced, people will find them easy to follow, easy to understand and of benefit.

Mr Mark Robinson: This most detailed and comprehensive statement in respect of future child support in the Province is very welcome. The assessment of child support, according to the Prime Minister, is
"one of the most complicated operations within the broad field of social security."
That assessment could have involved over 100 pieces of information, leading to long, wearisome and often non-productive lines of inquiry. We are very quickly into one of the most feared, indeed hated, monsters of the 1990s that signally fails to provide maintenance for, or on behalf of, many children. A simplified method of calculation to replace this sprawling monster is to be welcomed.
The lack of enthusiasm for the machinations of the CSA can be traced back to its first year of operation. Fifteen million pounds was paid for children via the CSA in 1993/94, but £200 million had been paid through the previous system in 1992/93. The introduction of the CSA produced frightened, apprehensive mothers and angry, fearful fathers and caused 70% of lone mothers to strive to avoid making child support applications. The result was ever increasing child poverty — with over three million children in the United Kingdom living in poverty and with over 50% living in one-parent families.
It is incumbent upon the Assembly to give this matter the priority it deserves. It is reasonable to expect that this new Bill will create a fairer system. It will certainly be simpler to understand, but will it deliver? Can the CSA be revolutionised, and can the position of 90% assessment, 10% collection be changed? Will we have a situation in which there is fair, simple, reliable child support for all and not just for 40%, as at present?
Will the remodelled CSA have the means at its disposal to ensure that parents face their responsibilities for the complete care of their children? We do not just want a re-shake of the moneys involved. Will the red tape and bureaucracy be reduced when we contemplate the recalculation that has to be done? Any such reduction has to be welcomed.
Finally, there is perhaps a question concerning the feasibility of collecting the £5 payment from non-resident parents on low incomes.

Mr Jim Shannon: This issue has previously been before the Assembly. It is quite timely to reconsider this issue given the amount of correspondence I have received in my constituency office. We have to find a balance between parental accountability and making the system simpler so that people do not feel crucified by it. Many of my constituents wish to contribute to their partners and children but are being crucified by the CSA. It is vital and, indeed, right that a father should support his children, and I have found great frustration within the system when there has not been enough power to make fathers more accountable. Is it simpler to make a parent pay towards his children’s upbringing if he continually moves address, or if his job is of a nature that makes it hard to find him?
I disagree with Ms McWilliams’s comment about disqualifying people from driving because that is one of the areas where the system has fallen down. I agree with and welcome the commitment because having that driving licence option at least will ensure that a parent is more accountable. I have seen cases where people have been taxi drivers and the CSA could not locate them. We have to have a system to make such people accountable.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Member give way?

Mr Jim Shannon: I will give way in a second. The Bill provides that if, but only if, a court is of the opinion that there has been wilful refusal or culpable negligence on the part of the liable person, then, and only then, will he lose his licence.

Prof Monica McWilliams: If the taxi driver to whom the Member referred loses his licence how will he earn an incomeWill he not just go from being self-employed to being dependent on the state?

Mr Jim Shannon: The whole purpose of the child support changes is to try to stop those people who are trying to get out of the system. We have people trying to avoid their responsibility to support their children. This is one way of addressing that.
If a person were making an effort to fulfil his commitment to his children, there would be no need to take that step. The important words are "if, but only if". In other words, there will always be an opportunity for a person to address the issue, make himself accountable and make the correct payment towards his children. That option should be contained in this legislation. It is not a matter of taking a licence from somebody in a willy- nilly way.
Some fathers have been pursued by the CSA and threatened with hellfire and damnation even though they have been paying a large amount of money to their wives. On the other hand, there are parents who have made a straight financial contribution towards their children quite apart from the CSA, but find themselves unable to meet the new commitments set by the CSA when it steps in.
The system is blatantly unfair to those parents who want, and intend, to pay for their children but who find that the CSA’s system often constitutes one of the worst purges there has ever been. A great problem has been the time that it takes to sort out an enquiry. I suggest to the Minister that he should try to shorten the time taken for enquiries. A four-week period is a fair length of time in which to complete an enquiry, but that is not the time being taken at present. I have spoken to the Minister on the matter, and he has said that the commitment to staff and finances is there.
One case, sorted out last Friday, took 20 weeks, and that was an absolute nightmare for the father involved. He is a parent who wants to pay for his children and who made an agreement to do so before the CSA came on the scene. But when the CSA got involved, he had to wait for 20 weeks before the matter was sorted out. He was almost persecuted and worried sick about the whole procedure.
There are parents who dearly love their children and whose only crime was to fall out with their partners. Every day they worry about making CSA payments and its inability to sort their cases out quickly. We need a system that is faster and more positive.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on access to Inland Revenue records, which will be especially helpful. It will make those who try to avoid making payments for their children more responsible.
I would ask the Minister to look at the threshold for an appraisal of the circumstances. A reduction from £10 to £5 would be more appropriate, thereby making sure that an enquiry could be pursued and changes made if necessary. Although the financial change may sometimes be small, it can certainly help a claimant. This is referred to on pages 7 and 8 of the Bill under the heading "Agreement to a variation".
I would like the Minister to look at the distance that a person travels to work. Nowadays people travel further distances to work. The threshold for the fuel allowance is so high that, unfortunately, many people do not qualify for this relief. The route that a person travels to work is measured as the crow flies. It would be more appropriate to use the bus routes as measurements, thereby ensuring that a better evaluation of the distance a person travels to work was made.
I realise that the Minister is trying to address these issues, but some of them are quite complicated. We have an opportunity to reach a happy medium between the legal requirement to deliver on CSA payments and the existence of a system that does not persecute the parents. Sometimes the overzealousness of an official can push a parent to the point that he quits his job. I know this has happened, and in some cases people have been driven to contemplating suicide.
Parents must pay for their children, and we want to make sure that that happens. The Minister has tried here to get a balance, and it has been difficult to achieve. We want to ensure that a parent pays for his children, but we also want to ensure that the system is such that it does not persecute him either.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened to all the points made during the debate. Most have been thoughtful, if not always positive, and sometimes there has been a degree of confusion. However, I will try to address that in my winding-up remarks.
Members concentrated for the most part on the child support aspect of the Bill. The problems with child support are well documented, and it is important that everything possible is done to resolve them. The provisions in the Bill are aimed at doing just that. If Members have concerns about individual cases, they can write to me about them.
I am aware of the concerns regarding the introduction of a percentage assessment. It has been said that those who are well off will be required to pay a lot of money because of it. I want to make it clear that the figures of 15%, 20% and 25% for one, two and three or more children apply only to net incomes of above £200 and below £2,000 per week. There was only one oblique reference made to that. Anyone earning between £100 and £200 per week will pay a lesser percentage, and those earning up to £100 per week will make only a token payment. These are net incomes.
There is an upper limit of £2,000 per week, and there is also a percentage limit. The limit of 25% of net income is less than that which can be reached under the present system. Under the current system the limit can hit 30% of net income. That must be taken on board.
It is not possible to produce a genuine assessment of losers and gainers. Given that there have been such problems with the current system, it is impossible genuinely to assess changes in people’s behaviour. The Bill is endeavouring to redress the problems of the existing system by learning from the errors of the past. While it is impossible to attain perfection, I am confident that it will be a system that will meet public demands, is fair and transparent and can be operated by the Child Support Agency.
It is necessary for the old and new systems to operate together initially — albeit for as short a time as possible. There must be two systems; there cannot be a "big bang". It will not be possible to switch off the old system on Friday, put the existing caseload on the new system the following Monday, accept new cases from that date and expect the system to work effectively. That will not happen, and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise. The overlap will be for as short a time as possible. The important thing is to ensure that everything works.
New information technology is required, and it will take some time for it to be up and running. The delay is unavoidable, but the system with the new formula cannot be implemented before it is certain that it will work. There is no benefit from rushing it. This is the last chance for the Child Support Agency — it has to be right this time.
It has been said that the new system will lead to high deduction rates. I hope I have made it clear that there is a percentage limit of 25%, not a cash limit. That is fair. However, that will not destroy private arrangements. Partners or parents who want to make private arrangements are free to do so as long as they do not involve the benefits system. That was the bottom line for the institution of the Child Support Agency in the first place. The new formula is fair. It can be made to work with the existing system and with new information technology.
There is concern about the driving licence provisions. Those provisions will be an alternative to a prison sentence if the courts do not want to impose one. In most instances, especially in cases of debt, prison sentences are a ludicrous sanction. The driving licence provisions will offer the courts an alternative sanction; they will not weaken the measure. It is hoped that the threat of losing their licences will cause motorists to pay their dues — that is all they are being asked to do.
I must make it clear that all children in a relationship will be covered by the child support system. If the payment is necessarily split with, for example, a requirement to pay 20% for the children of two parents, 10% will go to each. It has also been suggested that mothers should be able to choose to pursue maintenance. It is right that, where income support is being paid, parents with care should co-operate wherever possible in seeking maintenance for their children. They will have to opt out rather than opt in, but they will be informed of that when they make their initial claim for income support.
12.00
I wish to make some points about pensions. The state pension will benefit many people, including the long- term disabled, who have never had such provision in the past. People are living longer and, if the system is not changed, one in three pensioners will retire straight on to a means test. Arrangements must be put in place now to prevent this. Waiting until it happens is not the answer. It is necessary to operate a twin-track policy to cover today’s pensioners and the pensioners of tomorrow. The same policy will not work for both as the cost implications make that impossible. This does not mean that there is apartheid in pensions. It is true that high earners have no difficulty achieving a decent pension and that modest earners may or may not be able to be in occupational pension schemes. Those who are not in occupational pension schemes will want to choose another option, and that is provided for by low-cost stakeholder pensions. For low earners it is not tenable to expect carers, disabled people with broken work records and people with long- term low incomes to organise funded pensions. That is not possible.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
With the introduction of a state second pension, the pension that these people will receive, compared to the existing state earnings related pension, will be doubled — in some cases more than doubled. SERPS was good when it was introduced, but the world has changed since then. As SERPS is earnings related it does not, by definition, help the long-term low paid. For the average male retiring today SERPS provides about £40 a week. Twenty years ago people complained that they would have to wait a long time for that sum. That time has passed, but it takes time to build up a pension pot. Members will agree that it is important to direct available cash to where the need is greatest, and that is what the second state pension will do.
There is concern about the community order provisions. Anyone who complies with such an order will have nothing to fear from these provisions. They will only apply to people who breach the terms of their sentences. The remedy is therefore in the hands of the offenders. The provisions of this Bill are aimed at encouraging people to comply with their obligations to society and at providing assistance to those in the community who need it most.
I hope that the Assembly will forgive my confusion regarding those Members who expressed concern about the accelerated passage. None of that concern was expressed on the day that we asked to go down that route. If Members felt then as they feel today they should have said something about it then. All we needed was one person to get to his or her feet and object. That would have ensured that the Bill could not have proceeded with accelerated passage.
I am puzzled about why Members are so confused. They must have had more important things to do and so were not present. The fact that they feel there are more important things than being here to stop a Bill going down the accelerated passage route is acceptable to me. That is entirely a matter for them, but their lamentations are a little belated.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Time is not on my side, and the Member has had her opportunity. She had her opportunity last week and did not take it. However, I will give way if she is brief.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I thank the Minister for giving way. There is an issue that we will need to look at. This matter arose on Tuesday afternoon, and unfortunately on Tuesday afternoons Committees are sitting. The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee sat in order to meet the deadline on student finance. We noticed that we did not have an annunciator in the room. To avoid a recurrence, it has been proposed that an annunciator be available where a Committee must meet at the same time as the House is sitting.
I did make the point when I was addressing this issue that some of us could not be here but have that concern. Because of a lack of business that day, that issue was taken ahead of its timing on the agenda.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am sure that the Member does not hold me accountable for organising the business of the Assembly. If there is not an annunciator in a room, or if there is some other failing in the Assembly, no doubt Ms McWilliams will take that up with the appropriate authorities. However, it would have taken, I think, about 30seconds to do the business that she refers to. I regret that she was so busy that she could not afford 30seconds to come to the Chamber. It was on the Order Paper too.
I want to deal with some of the points that MrCobain, the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee, raised. He asked why the Committee did not have an opportunity to scrutinise the Bill. The accelerated passage procedure must have the leave of the Assembly, and in this case it was necessary to enable parity to be maintained — that cannot be overemphasised. Also, the Social Development Committee did have advance warning through a detailed presentation by my predecessor, MrNigelDodds, so it is not strictly true to say that it did not have an opportunity for scrutiny. There were plenty of opportunities, or at least one anyway, and more than one.
Patricia Lewsley mentioned fair Government for older people. I am aware of the pilot schemes in Great Britain. These will be taken into account in the development of any policies. We will, of course, look at these very carefully and try to learn as much as we possibly can. She also raised the matter of an increase in tax allowance for occupational pensions. I understand the Member’s point. Tax matters are, of course, outside the jurisdiction of the Assembly.
Another point that Patricia Lewsley raised was that the success of the minimum income guarantee campaign should be built on. That campaign is ongoing, and my Department is alive to the need to do all that it can to answer those who are entitled to claim benefit. The Member also said that there are delays in maintenance assessment. Under the new system, much more of the Child Support Agency’s time will be spent on the proper enforcement of maintenance arrangements once they are reached. Once the new formula is in place and the agency is running at full speed, maintenance assessments will be made in four to six weeks instead of the current six months. By anybody’s standards that will be a considerable improvement.
Patricia Lewsley also made a point about the delivery and management of all benefits. I am very much aware of the need to ensure that the benefits system meets the demands made upon it. This is a matter which I keep under constant review with the Social Security Agency.
Sue Ramsey asked if I could give an assurance that DNA samples will be destroyed after use. The honest answer is that I cannot give that assurance at this moment, but I will have an in-depth study done on the matter and write to the Member. SueRamsey also asked if I could give an assurance about payments to parents with care. No, I cannot give such an assurance. Each case will be looked at individually, so it would be quite untruthful to state otherwise.
Dr Paisley said that there is a need to make sure that people are aware of their benefit entitlements. The Social Security Agency is continually doing everything possible to advise people of their benefit entitlements, and it co-operates with the voluntary sector to get the message across to needy groups. I also listened attentively to the point that he made about the wife opening the husband’s mail, and I am sure that did come as a very big shock. I appreciate that such a thing would cause great consternation in any family if it happened.
Mr Ford referred to clauses 65 and 66 and to the Family Law Bill. I will have to write to the Member about that, for I am unaware of the relationship. I will come back to him with a more detailed answer. He also raised clauses 53 and 57 and the breaching of community sentences. This is intended to match rights with responsibilities. An offender can avoid sanction by complying with the terms of the probation order or community service order.
Mr Ford also raised a very important point that needs to be dealt with clearly: the matter of parity. The overriding point is that any difference in cost would have to be met out of the Northern Ireland block. Some Members will recall that there was a debate here last week about an additional £5 for pensioners. Some said that the Assembly could not do that, but the truthful answer is that it could do that but would have to find the money. I say to Mr Ford that we could do this, but we would be breaking parity and the difference would have to be met out of the Northern Ireland block.
Monica McWilliams mentioned clause 16 and the removal of driving licences. I would like to take a moment or two to elaborate on that point. The child support system is not working at the moment. That has to change. A study has been made of what other countries do to get non-resident parents to pay maintenance. Some confiscate driving licences and others confiscate the passports of persistent non-payers. Other countries have found that the threat of removing a driving licence can be very effective in encouraging increased compliance. The availability of this sanction alone will not make non-resident parents think twice about trying to evade their responsibilities, but it will be up to the courts to decide whether a licence should be taken away or not. All of that will be considered before that final decision is taken. I imagine that one of the things that would be paramount in their thinking is how much an individual depends upon a driving licence for his work.
Ms McWilliams also mentioned accelerated passage. Maybe she will accept the answer that I gave earlier. Anyone could have stopped that by standing up in the Assembly. She had some reservations about pilot schemes too. The purpose of the pilot scheme is to determine whether the proposal is effective. Evaluation will take place. The power to do something must be in legislation before it can be used.
The Member raised the role of Social Security Advisory Committee. The Social Security Advisory Committee has no role in primary legislation, either in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland. The arena for consideration of these proposals is Parliament at Westminster or the Assembly. Ms McWilliams asked if the Minister could assure the house that the benefits of dependants would not be sanctioned for breach of community sentences. I can give that assurance today.
Mr ONeill raised a point about seasonal workers whose income is irregular and whose earnings fluctuate. The Department can take into account earning patterns over a longer period when making its assessment. The Member also raised the appointment of an appeals tribunal chairman. Appointments are a matter for the Lord Chancellor’s Department.
He asked that information be so presented to the public as to be understandable. Social security, child benefit and pension legislation is complex. The Social Security Agency and the Child Support Agency try to use plain English, but plain English often comes at the expense of brevity.
The Member for Strangford (Mr Shannon) mentioned absent parents who move house. Absent parents are encouraged to pay by direct debit or standing order making it easier to deal with changes of address.
Mr Shannon and the Member for South Belfast (Ms McWilliams) mentioned the position of taxi drivers. A court has to consider whether a person needs a licence to earn a living. The person must be present in court where he will have an opportunity to state his case. Mr Shannon also mentioned travelling to work. Under the new simplified system which works on flat rates, there will be no mileage allowance.
That covers most of the points. If others need to be dealt with in more detail I will come back to Members after we have read Hansard.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill (NIA Bill 1/00) be agreed.

First Minister

Mr Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That this Assembly has no confidence in the First Minister.
First, it might be useful to say something about procedure. The censure motion is a standard feature of parliamentary democracy. ‘Erskine May’ refers to it as an "established convention".
‘Erskine May’ refers to the regularity with which it has been employed in the House of Commons and to its legitimacy. Such a motion represents a challenge that must be faced up to immediately and fully by the Government. It was something of a surprise, therefore, that when this standard procedure was adopted in the Assembly, it received the reaction that it did from some sources.
I note that the poor scriptwriter used by the Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party has, again, been repetitive: almost every answer to the questions arising from the DUP motion suggests that it is a stunt. That is interesting, because that stunt has been played out in the Waterfront Hall week after week. On many occasions the expression of "no confidence" inside the higher echelons of the Ulster Unionist Party has been overwhelming. I note that the Ulster Unionist Party Whip said exactly the same thing when we proposed a motion to exclude Sinn Féin from Government, even though the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party had given that commitment to the public and even though it was recorded in Hansard that he had said at the previous Assembly sitting that he would do that. It was called a stunt, because the Democratic Unionist Party was doing it. Once again his poor scriptwriter has come up with the same response.
However, I expect a full debate with a lot of participation from the Members from the Ulster Unionist Party, because their Leader deserves the support of his Colleagues — according to their Chief Whip. Member after Member will be standing up from the Benches of the Ulster Unionist Party to list the merits of their Leader — according to their Chief Whip.
I was somewhat surprised to hear a Member who is not present today say that he would be opposed to discussing this motion because it might lead to a Unionist cat fight. Was he watching the ding-dong between Jeffrey Donaldson and David Trimble almost every day last week? Did he consider that to be a cat fight? Did he tune in to ‘Hearts and Minds’ at the end of last week and watch Willie Ross and Michael "the Mortician" McGimpsey slug it out on television? Was he present at the Ulster Unionist conference on Saturday, listening to the catcalls, the booing, the hissing and the heckling? I would have thought that a dignified debate in the Assembly would be less of a cat fight than some of the events he himself has taken part in. Another Member, who I think is also absent today, said that she would not support the motion, effectively because it was not the business of the Democratic Unionist Party to say whether or not it supported the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. Well, of course it is not. What the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party says and does is a matter for the Ulster Unionist Party. The motion, however, is not about the leadership of the Ulster Unionist Party; it is about the First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I consider that his stewardship of his position as First Minister is a matter for the Assembly. He is answerable to the Assembly and, ultimately, to the people of Northern Ireland. After all, it is our Province that he is destroying. It is our liberties that he is undermining. It is our democracy that he has endangered. Therefore it is appropriate that the Assembly consider this issue. Indeed, there could be no more appropriate body to consider it.
In that context, we have to look at what a confidence motion means. Confidence is about trust: whether we can trust the word of the First Minister; whether we can trust him to keep his promises; whether we can trust the First Minister to achieve the aims that he has stated he wants to achieve; whether we can trust him to provide wise leadership; and whether we can trust him to exercise sound judgement. I will be examining his record under each of those headings to determine whether, indeed, he can be trusted and whether the Assembly should have confidence in him.
I start with the subject of policing, because the First Minister considered the subject so important that he devoted some space to it in his ‘’News Letter’ article on Saturday and some time during the course of his remarks at his party conference. Indeed, it is a subject on which he has been attempting to rewrite history for many months. Let us look first at what he said about policing before Patten had actually reported. He said that the police had nothing to fear from a commission of inquiry. Had they nothing to fear? We can judge whether he obtained his stated aims, whether he kept his promises, in this case to the rank and file of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, what leadership he provided and how sound his judgement was.
The first thing is that it was the First Minister who provided Patten with his remit. He is the architect of the Belfast Agreement and he subscribed to the terms of that agreement. The remit is clear in the Belfast Agreement. It indicates that there will be a new policing service. It cannot, therefore, have come as any surprise to him when he read those aspects of the report that sought to set up a new policing service.
As the remit that he gave Patten dealt with the composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols of the RUC, the First Minister could hardly be surprised at the proposals that came from Patten. In terms of structure — and he has made much of his unhappiness with some of the local police boards — the remit that he gave Patten was that the police service should be delivered in constructive and inclusive partnerships with the community at all levels. It is very clear that each aspect of the Patten Report came directly from the remit given to Patten.
I do not like the Patten Report. I am opposed to it. I am justified in being opposed to it because I opposed the remit that Patten was given in the Belfast Agreement. However, it is utter hypocrisy for those who supported the Belfast Agreement, and who agreed to giving Patten this remit, to complain when Patten carries that remit out. They cannot even complain about the person of Chris Patten, because they applauded his appointment. They said that the commission that was set up could not have been better. Having approved the terms of reference, applauded the appointment of Chris Patten and extolled the virtues of the commission, it ill becomes them now to say that they are unhappy with the result.
Is it any wonder, therefore, that when the First Minister referred to the police in his address on Saturday, when he said "We know who to blame", the voices of his party members came back: "Yes, you."? For he is the guilty man. He is the person responsible for the destruction of the RUC that we are now seeing. I noted that in his article in the ‘News Letter’ he had the audacity to say that Patten breached the terms of reference he was given by the agreement. In his speech on Saturday he said
"Patten asked ‘What did we expect when we signed the Agreement?’ I’ll tell him what we expected. We expected his report to be acceptable to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland. It wasn’t."
Why did he expect that Patten’s report would be acceptable to the greater number of people in Northern Ireland? I did not expect it to be. His one excuse has consistently been that the remit required the report to have widespread acceptance. But it does not, and either — I do not know whether I am allowed to suggest that he was either a fool or a knave, but certainly one of those must be true — he knew the remit he had given to Patten, in which case he would be a knave, or he did not know, in which case he would be a fool. The remit given to Patten does not require the proposals brought forward by the Commission to be acceptable to both sections of the community. Nowhere in the remit does it say any such thing. If the Member is rushing for a copy of the Patten Commission’s Report I will read to him the section which he has sought misinterpret or he cannot understand. It says
"The proposals on policing should be designed to ensure that policing arrangements including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a policing service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole."
Some people are saying "There you are now — it shows their lack of capacity to understand what they read and hear." I will test them on it, and we will see whose interpretation is accurate. Nowhere does it say that the proposals have to be acceptable to widespread sections of our community. It says that the police service arising from the proposals has to be acceptable.
Let me illustrate the difference. Will any member of the Ulster Unionist Party stand up and say "I will not support the Police Service after these proposals go through"? Is there one of them? They have been chiding the SDLP for years and saying "We know you do not like the police set-up in Northern Ireland. We know you do not like its symbols. We know you do not like many of the arrangements, the composition of the force, but as responsible elected representatives you have to give your support to the instrument of law enforcement in Northern Ireland." That is what they expected from the SDLP; that is what I expected from the SDLP. I suspect that there is not one of them in a post-Patten era who will stand up and say "This new Police Service is not going to have my support." Of course they could say they do not support the proposals, but when implemented they will give support to the new Police Service.
That is the reality. That is the difference. The Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has sought deliberately to misinterpret that by saying that the proposals required widespread support when they did not. Because of the First Minister’s ineptness and incompetence, Patten carried out the remit that he had been given and then the Ulster Unionists turned on him. No wonder a frustrated Chris Patten said "What on earth did they expect." They are responsible for the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and they know it. The community has no confidence in them because of their role in giving Patten his remit.
I want to examine the issue of decommissioning. I know it hurts them when this subject is under discussion but, nonetheless, it has to be dealt with; it is a key issue. For evidence that paper and ink refuse nothing, I read Mr Trimble’s comments on decommissioning in the Belfast ‘News Letter’. He said
"the Ulster Unionist Party has never abandoned its pledge on this matter to the Unionist people."
Well, let us see. The first significant pledge made by the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was in a feature article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ on Friday 7 June 1996. Members will remember that at that time we were about to enter a talks process. The Government were angling to have the representatives of Sinn Féin/IRA present. The Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party came out thumping his chest. The heading says it all:
"I’ll stop talks if decommissioning of all arms doesn’t start right away".
The requirement was there from the very beginning. I see the First Minister shifting around in his seat. I am not surprised; it would be difficult for him to sit still with such condemnation being heaped upon him. He was going to stop the talks from proceeding if the decommissioning of all weapons did not start straight away. He says in this article
"But our position is quite clear."
Well, at least for that day.
"The issue must be tackled at the beginning with clear commitments given which will be honoured by actual decommissioning beginning in a short period thereafter."
He then defines decommissioning:
"According to the Communique of February 28, the opening session includes the issues of Mitchell, the agenda and the procedures. I would not be surprised if, without any timewasting on anybody’s part, the opening session takes several weeks. If towards the end of that session, paramilitary parties have not established their good faith by beginning decommissioning, we will insist that they be excluded from further participation in the negotiations, and we will not allow them to proceed to substantive negotiations."
The Ulster Unionist Leader, who has never abandoned his pledges on decommissioning, made it clear that, in order for Sinn Féin/IRA — and I assume he meant others as well — to participate in the talks, it was necessary for them to have begun decommissioning. He broke that pledge. He entered substantive negotiations; he continued and ended those negotiations, without any decommissioning from beginning to end.
Then there was the Assembly election. Proudly, the First Minister released his election manifesto. Once more, he gave a commitment — a pledge — to the people, as far as decommissioning was concerned:
"Before any terrorist organisation,"
I can understand some people not wanting to hear their election manifesto, but it might be good if they were to listen to what they actually stood on when they went to the people and asked for their support.

Mr Seamus Mallon: I thank the hon Member for giving way. At the outset, he was at pains to lay down his terms of reference, those being that this motion is one of no confidence in the First Minister. So far, he has dealt with matters that do not fall within the responsibility of the First Minister, the Executive or the Assembly. I ask the Member if the terms of reference are accurate. Is he not dealing with the First Minister’s role as Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party rather than with the motion itself? He himself laid down the terms of reference and I wonder when he is going to deal with them.

Mr Peter Robinson: Such bogus interventions are always an indicator of how generous I should be in giving way to people.
Everybody recognises that he should be responsible for the promises he made to the electorate of Northern Ireland during the Assembly election which brought him to this place and, subsequently, to become First Minister. I am surprised at how protective the Deputy First Minister is of his Colleague, given that most of the time he is not even on the same page as the First Minister on issues such as these.
However, he has given me an opportunity to read from the beginning again the First Minister’s election manifesto, that brought him — [Interruption] No. Well, if it is relevant, yes.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is very relevant.
Is it not the case that the Ulster Unionist Party’s manifesto was not produced by or on behalf of the First Minister, but was written on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party? When will the Member deal with this motion in terms of the First Minister’s responsibility to the Assembly?

Mr Peter Robinson: That will be the last intervention. I can understand why the First Minister would want to disassociate himself from his party’s manifesto. However, it stretches credulity a little far to separate the First Minister from the election manifesto that he published, that he peddled and on which he was elected. The connection is there for everybody to see, and given the line of argument from the Deputy First Minister, I suspect that he may have been in the company of the First Minister for too long.
The manifesto said this:
"Before any terrorist organisation and/or its political wing can benefit from the proposals contained in the Agreement on the release of terrorist prisoners and the holding of ministerial office in the Assembly, the commitment to exclusively peaceful and non- violent means must be established. The Ulster Unionist Party will, therefore, be using various criteria that are objective, meaningful and verifiable in order to judge:
that there is a clear and unequivocal commitment that cease-fires are complete and permanent. that the ‘war’ is over and violence ended; that targeting, training, weapons procurement —
does that ring a bell with the First Minister in light of the phone calls he has been making to the USA on the subject? —
and so-called paramilitary beatings cease forthwith; that there is progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures; that use of proxy organisations for paramilitary purposes cannot be tolerated; that disarmament must be completed in two years, and that the fate of the’"Disappeared’ will be made known immediately."
The manifesto goes on, but it is abundantly clear that the Ulster Unionist party was committed, through its Leader, the First Minister, to the principle that there would be no entry into Government until actual decommissioning had taken place. Further to that, it also required the actual dismantling of the terror machine. If anybody was in any doubt, he received a personal letter from the First Minister during the election, saying
"the Ulster Unionist Party will not sit in the Government of Northern Ireland with un-reconstructed terrorists. This issue must be comprehensively addressed to our satisfaction. Paramilitary organisations must decide that the war is over, dismantle, disarm and stop the beatings".
Yet the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party tells us in the Belfast ‘News Letter’ that
"the Ulster Unionist Party has never abandoned its pledge".
In a debate in the Assembly on 15 December 1998 the First Minister replied to the Member for North Down, Mr McCartney. He said
"If the issue of forming an Executive should arise without there having been a credible beginning to decommissioning, as required by the agreement, we would have to table a motion for the exclusion from office of those who had not begun the process of decommissioning".
Yet we are led to believe that the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party has never broke his pledges on decommissioning.
On 17 May he said
"there must be a credible and verifiable start to a process of decommissioning, before Sinn Féin can participate in government.
The Ulster Unionist Party will not change its position on this matter now, during or after the European election. This issue goes right to the heart of the Agreement and to the commitments to peace and democracy that Government Ministers must abide by".
Yet the Ulster Unionist Party has never broken its pledges on decommissioning.
On 28 June he again said
"No Recognisable, quantifiable, decommissioning before any Executive is established remains the only way in which democrats can safely see that the war is indeed over".
It has not happened, but they are in the Government, their commitment broken again.
I have read a transcript of a television interview he had with John Humphrys, who suggested that the First Minister
"could, for instance, say ‘Let’s find a way whereby we can set up an executive in Northern Ireland before the IRA actually begins a process of physically getting rid of any weapons’."
Mr Trimble responded
"Well, what would be the point of doing that. What would be the point of bringing about a situation where people are in Government by day and involved in terrorism by night. Wouldn’t that be an appalling state of affairs? Isn’t that likely to lead to a complete collapse of confidence in this process if you’re going to undermine and destroy the integrity of it? I can’t see the point of even thinking in those terms. I’ve made it clear all the way through this that words are not enough, and they are not enough; they are not going to carry credibility".
John Humphrys laboured the point:
"Right, but what you’re not saying this morning in this rather ugly abbreviation that is used occasionally, you’re not saying categorically ‘No guns, no government’."
Mr Trimble responded
"Oh I am, I am. I would regard what you’ve said as being precisely that. There’s no question of people being involved in the administration without decommissioning. That has to happen."
Yet the Ulster Unionist Party has kept its pledges on decommissioning.
I made reference earlier to events over the last number of days following an Ulster Television programme which revealed that rather than decommissioning, the IRA is supplementing its arms stockpiles. Rather than getting rid of guns, it is bringing them in. What was the response? Does the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, our First Minister, rush to the Assembly and say "This is preposterous and unacceptable. Here we have a party in government. One of its Ministers is a member of the IRA Army Council that has sanctioned the bringing of guns into Northern Ireland. I cannot tolerate this situation."? Is that what he says? No, it is not. He attempts to get it covered over. According to newspaper reports, he was the first to get in touch with Sandy Berger to see if the matter could be resolved. Then the American pressure started on Ulster Television to pull the programme. Instead of facing up to the issue and recognising the folly into which he had entered, the First Minister’s answer was to sweep it under the carpet.
This is the heart of the issue. Some might say the guns are silent, but there have been occasions when the Provisional IRA’s guns were not so silent. It is accumulating more weapons. What for? If it is committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, why is it supplementing its stockpiles of weapons? It is very clear that it has no intention of decommissioning. The people realise it, and we realise it in this House. How sad that it has not dawned on the First Minister that he has been suckered once again into believing the words of Sinn Féin/IRA.
The next issue is the release of prisoners. The commitment of the First Minister was that the RUC would not be disbanded and that only prisoners linked to paramilitary groups observing a ceasefire would be released — and then only on licence. The requirement to decommission before taking Executive posts would be underpinned by legislation, thus giving it the force of law. Prisoners were not to be released until violence had ended and decommissioning had taken place. Now, however, they are on our streets and re-engaging in racketeering and terrorist activity. They are back to their old haunts and in their old organisations, all with the permission of the First Minister, who, in effect, turned the keys to release them from their prison cells.
I could spend some time dealing with the First Minister’s commitments on all-Ireland institutions and how he said they would be made accountable to the Assembly. However, on the very first occasion that my Friend Dr Paisley attempted to make them so accountable, he was told — and I do not question the Speaker’s ruling on this matter, for he had no alternative — that he was out of order and that the Assembly could not ask such questions. No vote could be taken on those issues. These bodies, set up with full Executive authority, are accountable to themselves, not to the Assembly.
I note that, over the last few days, the First Minister’s claims are becoming even wilder. He has told us that the Republic’s claim has been removed, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is gone, that there is no Maryfield Secretariat and that Unionists are now on the inside. What he does not tell us is that, as far as the Republic’s claim is concerned, one need not claim something one already has. If one is effectively operating joint sovereignty, one need not claim that one has any authority in Northern Ireland, for one is exercising it every day. That is why the First Minister, as soon as he gets in trouble, hotfoots it to Dublin to speak to Bertie Ahern. That is why one of the few people to express confidence in the First Minister over the last few days has been the said MrAhern. The only three of whom I can think are a has-been the former Prime Minister, JohnMajor, the Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson, and the Dublin Prime Minister, BertieAhern.

Mr Robert McCartney: Is the hon Member aware that John Major publicly stated that the Belfast Agreement was his framework with knobs on, while the Unionist document explaining the agreement says that they have destroyed the framework?

Mr Peter Robinson: Indeed. No wonder the former Prime Minister is one of the few cheerleaders for the First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The Agriculture Committee had a high-ranking civil servant from the Department of Agriculture giving evidence about the LEADER + programme. He was asked whether, after the Assembly had decided what it wanted to do and voted on it, that was the final decision. He said that the decision had to go to the joint council, which can change it. I asked if we could see the proposals made by the South of Ireland representatives on LEADER +; he said "No". So that body can overrule everything, although we were told that it really had no power. Now, the leader of the Unionist Party is suggesting that he might pull back a little from this body.

Mr Peter Robinson: The point is well made. Each time the First Minister runs off for succour from Dublin he emphasises the role that he has given them in the affairs of Northern Ireland. He tells us that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is gone, but he does not tell us that something far worse has been put in its place. He tells us that there is no Maryfield Secretariat, but does not bother to say that it has just moved its address to the centre of Belfast. He says that Unionists are on the inside but does not tell us that they are subject to a Nationalist and Republican veto on all that they do.
It is no wonder that, in this confused state, the First Minister tells readers of the ‘The Daily Telegraph’ that he did not sign up to this agreement. It seems to have taken him several years to discover that he did not sign up to it; as a letter writer recently asked, "If he did not, who did?" He did sign up to all of this. After the South Antrim by-election he sought to blame the media, the SDLP and Alliance, the candidate, the weather and even the electorate. So, on this issue, he tries to pass the buck again: "This is not the agreement that I signed." That is why people cannot have confidence in the First Minister — he does not even know what he signed up to. The First Minister has an interpretation of the Belfast Agreement that nobody else shares. In his own wee world, he still believes that his interpretation is the only possible one. He talks about "constructive ambiguity" — an admission that he signed a document that could be read in any number of different ways, was open to any number of different interpretations and, therefore, was open to many different forms of implementation. He signed up to an agreement without knowing what the outcome would be. Now he says "I did not sign up to this agreement". He did, and he has no excuse. Over and over again, in elected bodies and, indeed, in public, he was told precisely what the effect of the agreement would be. There was no shortage of people, from all of the parties on the Unionist side, telling him exactly what would be the outcome. But this trainspotter would not listen to advice from anybody. He was not prepared to take counsel from anyone; he knew it all. He had the correct interpretation of the agreement and knew what the outcome was going to be. Now, when we are proved right, he puts up his hands and says "I did not sign up to this agreement."

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will be aware that the Business Committee allowed threehours for the debate. I understand that he may have a lot to say, but the Clerks advise me that many other Members also feel that they have a good deal to contribute. If he could draw his remarks to a close, it would facilitate me in ensuring that as many other Members as possible are able to speak.

Mr Peter Robinson: I shall attempt to bring my remarks to a conclusion reasonably soon.
I also noted in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ that he had the shamefaced affrontery to face the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and accuse him of surrendering to terrorists. What was the trigger — if that is not a pun — that caused the First Minister to make these remarks? There was a package announced fairly recently, part of which amounted — although the Secretary of State does not like the terms being used — to providing an amnesty for on-the-run terrorists. In addition, some army bases were dismantled. The First Minister makes direct references to these matters and accuses the Prime Minister of surrendering to terrorism for making those concessions. Nobody on these Benches would disagree that this is a further surrender to terrorism.
How does the First Minister remove from himself the same accusation of surrendering to terrorism when he lets their prisoners out, when he puts their frontmen into government, when he destroys the police force that is protecting society and when he gives them their goal of setting up all-Ireland executive bodies? If that is not surrendering to terrorism, then nothing is. He should therefore remember that when he next decides to try to pass the buck to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom he is more guilty than Tony Blair, for he, living here, professing his Unionism, should have known better.

Mr Sam Foster: The hon Member refers to terrorism and what took place during the height of the troubles, but what active service did he give against terrorism during those years? Is this all lip-service today instead of active service? Can he also tell the Assembly what success he had with his foray into Clontibret some years ago? How beneficial was it? Did he underpin the Eire Exchequer to a great extent?

Mr Peter Robinson: It actually cost about £0·5 million, but I do not suppose the facts will make much difference today.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Mr Foster should know that Mr Robinson was in Clontibret.

Mr Peter Robinson: The Member obviously cannot keep track of events; the Minister already made that remark. Perhaps if the Member reads Hansard, he will see for himself.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member please draw his remarks to a close. He has been on his feet now for 46 minutes, albeit with some interruptions.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Business Committee is dominated not by the Democratic Unionist Party but by other Members of this House. If they want to limit the time for debate, that is their business. Mr Robinson is quite right, within the Standing Orders to have his say. If the Business Committee had wanted a six-hour debate, it could have had it. If, it had wanted the sitting to run on until tomorrow, it could have done that, but it wanted to guillotine this debate, and so Mr Robinson needs to be told from the Chair that he can go on all day, and you, Mr Speaker, can do nothing about it.

Mr Speaker: The Member is incorrect on two grounds. First, he will well know that, under Standing Orders, it is for the Business Committee to decide what will be debated, whether it will be debated and for how long, and it has ruled. Secondly, it is for the Speaker to decide whether a Member may continue speaking, or whether, in the view of the Chair, he has become repetitious or is taking too long — [Interruption] Order. The Member may be permitting too many other Members to intervene, thus lengthening — [Interruption] Order.
The interventions came from a number of Members, including members of his own party. As Speaker, I must ensure that the argument is balanced, as would anyone else in the Chair.
Please continue, Mr Robinson, but please bring your remarks to a close.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. If you intend to facilitate the First Minister, who wants to get the debate over before lunch, that is between you and him. We have a right to be heard. Do you want to silence us? That is all right because this is not a democratic Assembly anyway.

Mr Speaker: Dr Paisley needs to be careful that he does not put himself out of order in his remarks about the Speaker. It is my responsibility to ensure that a range of Members have the opportunity to speak. There are three hours for debate, and 46 minutes have been taken by one Member. Please bring your remarks to a close, Mr Robinson.

Mr Peter Robinson: I am bringing my remarks to a close, Mr Speaker. If I am accused of anything, it should be generosity in giving way to other Members.
If there is one Member of the Assembly who outdoes the First Minister in making U-turns, it is the Minister of the Environment, Mr Foster. Members might like to look back to Hansard from December 1998. The Member who is now Minister of the Environment — I will let somebody else deal with this in greater detail later, rather than take further time — made it abundantly clear then that he would never sit in an Executive with Sinn Féin/IRA unless decommissioning had taken place. He was so adamant that he was almost ready to stake his life on it. Everybody has seen his acrobatics and his about- turning on that matter. It is no wonder that he is treated with contempt in his constituency.
We have a First Minister in whom most of the other Ministers in the Executive have expressed a lack of confidence at one time or another. Here is a First Minister who has proved on many occasions that his party lacks confidence in him. Here is a First Minister in whom a majority of his Members of Parliament have no confidence. The First Minister has no confidence in himself. He and the Minister of the Environment are attempting to get the local government elections put out of the way so that he does not have to face the electorate. He has no confidence in the outcome of that election. It is hardly surprising that we on these Benches have no confidence in him either.
The First Minister has done greater damage to the Union, democracy and the liberties of people in Northern Ireland than any other figure in history. He has ushered corruption into the heart of government in Northern Ireland. He has sought to conceal his betrayal and evade the consequences. History will record the judgement of each Assembly Member today on his stewardship. At the end of the debate Members can show their disapproval of his tenure as First Minister. They can tell the First Minister what people up and down this country are saying: "We have no confidence in you".

Rt Hon David Trimble: I hope to make my remarks before it is necessary to go for lunch, although, as you rightly hinted, Mr Speaker, it did appear that the opening speech was more in the nature of a filibuster than a serious contribution to debate. Indeed, one wonders what the object of the exercise really is.
There is one thing which I should say right at the outset: what we have heard today demonstrates quite clearly the wisdom expressed by my Whip when he described this as a stunt. It is simply a stunt. It is a stunt which is patently and obviously choreographed with other events. That is clear from the timing of the announcement of this motion, what was said the next day and what happened the day after that. This is no coincidence, as they say, but there is another purpose behind this stunt, which is perhaps more significant. It is another attempt to mislead and deceive people. It is an attempt to mislead and deceive the supporters of the DUP, to try to persuade them that the Democratic Unionist Party is in some way opposed to this agreement, the Assembly and the Executive. They should ask some of the people who sit close to them about this matter, and they might like to go back to Portavogie and ask the people there as well.
The other thing I want to say by way of introduction is that Mr Robinson would be well advised, once he has calmed down and is in a more stable frame of mind, to read through his speech and ask himself if he is really proud of some of the appallingly stupid statements that he made. There was a suggestion that joint sovereignty is actually functioning in Northern Ireland today. That is the statement of someone who is not in contact with reality. I notice that at one point he suggested that Deputy First Minister was suffering from folie à deux because of his association with me. While it is possible that the Deputy First Minister and I have rubbed off a bit on each other, it is absolutely clear from the comments of Mr P Robinson that his prolonged association over decades with the people around him has rubbed off on his mind and his ability to think straight.
There is one small point of detail that I want to pick up — I think that he has been misled by the print media here — and that was the reference to telephone calls after the recent UTV programme that arose from the Miami gun-running. I want to make it quite clear to him that I made no calls to the US Administration.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Some of his staff did it.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Will the First Minister give way please?

Rt Hon David Trimble: No, I will reply to the sedentary interruption from Mr Dodds, who suggested that, rather than make the call myself, I had one of my minions — I did not know I had any — make the call for me. That is also untrue. I hope that Mr Dodds is relieved to have the truth pointed out to him.

Mr Cedric Wilson: I find this hard to understand or believe. I have it on very good authority — no less than that of the American Consul General in Belfast, Ms Fort — that it was a call from Mr Trimble to Mr Sandy Berger’s office in the United States that instigated American interest in the programme. They had no prior notion that such a programme was being made, let alone any knowledge of its content. Mr Trimble was in a position to know as he had been interviewed by MrTrevor Birney. Mr Trimble made a call to Mr Sandy Berger in the United States, and if he disagrees with that statement he should take the matter up with the American Consul General in Belfast, who also seems to be under some illusion on this matter.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I said what I did because I was aware from the print media that some people evidently believed what Mr Cedric Wilson has just said.
I said what I said quite deliberately, and I will say it again. I placed no call to Mr Berger, and neither did any of my staff. I received a call from him. [Laughter]
What an incredibly silly reaction — it is almost as if we are dealing with a crowd of children.
I received, late that afternoon, a call from Mr Berger in which he endeavoured to tell me some things about the Miami investigation that I did not believe. I will not go into detail.
Many of MrRobinson’s comments referred to the agreement and to the negotiations that led to the agreement. He made a lot of selective quotations. MrRobinson and his Colleagues are well aware of the truth of these words with regard to any process that leads to an agreement:
"When you go into negotiations, you do not get your top asking price. I cannot go further than that."
Everybody knows that the process of negotiation involves setting out a position and endeavouring to achieve it. Everybody knows that in such a process, one does not always achieve what one wants. In any agreement there will be things that one does not like, but perhaps one can thole them. I wonder if the words are familiar.

Mr Peter Robinson: You are meant to haggle and get something.

Rt Hon David Trimble: We got plenty of things. Mr Robinson referred to manifesto positions. He will recall this from a DUP manifesto: "The team you can trust".

Mr Nigel Dodds: Hear, hear.

Rt Hon David Trimble: "Hear, Hear", says Mr Dodds.
I quote from the DUP manifesto:
"We will not be talking to IRA/Sinn Féin before, during or after any election."
They are not just talking to Sinn Féin after that election. They are in government with Sinn Féin, they are sharing power with Sinn Féin, and they are communicating with Sinn Féin day in, day out, in the Executive and in the office they hold. We see the letters before every meeting. They come in every week.
They are working. Those Ministers come here and proudly declare that they are fulfilling all the offices that they have to, delivering their functions and carrying out their functions as Ministers in an Administration where they share power with Sinn Féin. That is the truth. They know it in Portavogie; they know it throughout Northern Ireland. They know too that there have been 500 Committee meetings. The DUP Members have sat beside Sinn Féin and communicated with them. We are seeing here an exercise in barefaced hypocrisy. [Interruption] We listened in silence to MrRobinson, but Mr Robinson’s friends try to shout down the truth about themselves.
We also had a discussion about policing — an interesting subject. MrRobinson tried to give us an exegesis of the agreement and the need for widespread acceptance. Mr McCartney said in the House of Commons in January of this year
"Is the Secretary of State aware that the remit of the Patten Commission was to produce proposals that would find broad acceptance and support throughout the community?"
I agree with Bob on that one.

Mr Peter Robinson: Will he now read from the remit where it says that?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I listened to Mr Robinson’s attempt to argue that there was no need for the proposals to achieve widespread acceptance — [Interruption] It was a fairly good effort in terms of Jesuitical reasoning, but it did not carry conviction.
Let us get to the substance of the policing issue. Who has tried to support the RUC, and who has not? Newspaper headlines stated "Paisley threatens the RUC". "Every decent, honest citizen should refuse to co-operate with the police; if their homes are attacked, then they should not come crying to me" said Dr Paisley. After the Patten Report was published the DUP —

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: It is amazing that he does not give the content to the report. The DUP and the Official Unionists were dragged out of this very House. Outside there were a number of womenfolk whom the police called "Orange bastards" and "whores". That is what they said. It is on the record. I made an official complaint to the police and told them if that was the type of people they were I would not support them. I stand over that, and I have submitted myself to this electorate over and over again. The Official Unionists have dragged this up, and the electorate has said "Nonsense." I have topped the poll in every European election that I have entered. The same matter was dragged up in South Antrim, and South Antrim gave its message loud and clear.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am sure that the House is glad to learn that due to alleged insulting remarks by some policemen, Dr Paisley considers the attacks on policemen’s homes in Northern Ireland to be acceptable. He says that the policemen should not come crying to him because he objects to some insulting remarks that have been made. There is a serious question here about attitudes to criminality. Dr Paisley’s statement clearly endorses attacks on policemen’s homes. Criminality directed against the police is OK because they have been offensive. That is what Dr Paisley clearly said.
The House and the community will see that Dr Paisley supports the position that he then adopted: it was all right for people to attack policemen’s homes because he was offended by them — [Interruption] I am responding to an intervention. This is the reality of the matter if we are talking about who has supported the police and who has not.
Then there is the matter of how the DUP has handled the policing issue and the way that Mr Robinson has handled it. It is clear to me and my Colleagues that the Patten Commission report departed from the agreement in a number of significant ways. The question of proposals that have support has been mentioned. We could mention the issue of discrimination. We could mention the constitutional provisions of the agreement which were not respected. However, there are also other matters.
Before the Patten Report was published some people argued that the police should be disbanded. There were people arguing that the police should be split up and that Northern Ireland should have several police forces. On all those matters the arguments that the Ulster Unionist Party put forward succeeded and, consequently, have preserved the existence of a single police force and also preserved its effectiveness.
The place to ensure the appropriate outcome of Patten and the legislation for it is in Parliament. It was in Parliament that my Colleagues worked very hard indeed, with considerable success. Where was Mr Peter Robinson? My party was represented on the Committee, and the DUP did not even ask to be on the Committee.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for the right hon Gentleman to mislead the House? He and his party know perfectly well that we made representations to be on that Committee. It was through his influence that we did not get on the Committee.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Dr Paisley should make further enquiries because his last comment is untrue. There was no obstruction to his party being represented from me or my Colleagues. Indeed, when the matter was being considered I said to MrIngram that a seat should be given to the DUP or to MrMcCartney if he wished to be on the Committee in place of the DUP.
The second statement made by DrPaisley is not true, and I ask him to accept the truth of what I have said. I hear what he has said. I was informed to the contrary by the Government. However, if he assures me that the DUP made an effort to be on the Committee but failed to do so, I will accept what he says. But it still does not deal with the issue of Report and Third Reading, where the opportunity was there to make representation. I was present throughout the debate, and I saw Mr Peter Robinson and Mr McCartney come in for a short while before they slipped away. The pages of Hansard show how little they contributed to the debate, and the record shows that they could not even table one amendment.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The First Minister knows perfectly well that it is nothing to do with the Government. They do not appoint the Committees of the House. The Committees of the House are appointed by the nominating Committee of the House of Commons. It was always accepted that the DUP should have a seat on that Committee, but the decision was taken not to put us on it. It was said that the OfficialUnionists did not want us on it. He can argue with that, but to mislead the House by saying that it had something to do with AdamIngram is absolute nonsense.

Mr Speaker: Order. What are being raised as points of order are, it seems to me, disputes of fact and points of view but not points of order. I rule that we should not have any further such points of order or I will have to intervene and stop them. The arguments can be made in speeches or interventions, but unless they are actually points of order I will not be able to take them as points of order.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The First Minister has been speaking for 17minutes and 22seconds. Is it in order for him to speak about the actual subject some time before he sits down? This is a motion of no confidence in the First Minister, but he seems to have nothing to say in his defence.

Mr Speaker: Order. In fairness, when the Deputy First Minister raised a question of that kind he raised it as an intervention rather than a point of order. We must continue and let the First Minister speak.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I was endeavouring to reply to some of the points raised by Mr Robinson, but apparently he does not want that. We have just a few minutes before lunch, and I do not want to prevent other Members from speaking when the debate resumes.
In reality, most of Mr Robinson’s comments were about policing and decommissioning. With regard to policing, the DUP has done nothing. It makes criticisms of us, but it does not actually do anything to make things better. The same is true of decommissioning. It makes criticisms of us, but does it actually do anything itself? The truth of the matter is that, both on policing and on decommissioning, the DUP does not actually do anything. It "takes" with regard to decommissioning — it complains about it, but it takes its seats. It takes its offices, it takes its ministerial posts, and it cheers all those in my own party who would want us to resign.
If, just for the sake of argument, we did resign from the Executive, would it take up — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I was going to ask whether in that situation the DUP would take up the extra ministerial posts that would come its way. I did not hear any answer to that one.
Again, the truth of the matter again is that in February — as a result of what the Ulster Unionist Party was doing because there has been no progress in decommissioning — this body was suspended as a result of our pressure over the failure to decommission. That week, did we hear a cheep from the DUP? We did not hear a cheep from the DUP — clinging to its offices all the time. And why? Because the primary objective of the DUP is simply to gain office and advantage for itself.
As for decommissioning, Mr Robinson told us the whole story. He said that the priority is not to get decommissioning. Speaking for his party, he said that that is not the priority. That is Mr Robinson’s position. Our position, as I stated on Saturday, is to achieve devolution and decommissioning, and we continue to be committed to that. Mr Robinson should reflect on what I said on that matter on Saturday.
Of course, as we know, the object of this exercise is not to achieve progress. The object is for the DUP to try and pretend that it is fighting hard against the system, when it is fully part of it, fully within it, and in its heart it knows it wants it to succeed — but it leaves it to us to make the effort. It leaves it to the Ulster Unionist Party to make the effort to achieve progress, and it sneaks along behind us, taking advantage of all our hard work.

Mr Speaker: This debate will be resumed at 4.00 pm.
The debate stood adjourned.
The sitting was suspended at 1.33 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions

Enterprise, Trade and Investment

Deasung Circuits Ltd

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 1. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will confirm that Deasung Circuits Ltd, Woodside Road Industrial Estate, Ballymena, has gone into liquidation; to outline the amount of funding allocated to this company by the IDB and/or LEDU during the last three years; and to explain what plans there are to deal with any redundancy claims.
(AQO 113/00)

Sir Reg Empey: The creditors meeting took place on 6 October to consider a creditors voluntary arrangement proposal. The proposal was accepted, and a supervisor was appointed to implement the arrangement and the subsequent winding-up of the company. The supervisor will deal with redundancy claims. No selective financial assistance has been allocated to the company in the last three years.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Can the Minister go on to assure the House that he is doing everything possible, in general terms, to secure investments and jobs in the Ballymena area? In particular, does he accept the fact that rumours are rife about the future of this company, that has haemorrhaged employees. This could have a knock-on effect on how redundancies are treated and managed by this company and, indeed, by others who are watching it and who may wish to treat their staff in a similar fashion. Can he assure me that he will investigate the matter further and that he will do more to ensure that the rights of employees in this part of my constituency are protected?

Sir Reg Empey: I intend to visit the Ballymena area later this week when the LEDU offices there will be celebrating an anniversary, as I am sure the hon Member is aware. I also intend to visit other locations during the course of my visit.
With regard to the general situation, the Member may be aware that this company has struggled to be successful since it opened, and, indeed, for the last three years, it has not been possible for the IDB to advance any further selective financial assistance. The IDB did, however, contribute towards the cost of a consultant to work with the company from November 1996 to September 1999 on marketing and manufacturing improvements.
In addition, the IDB met the company on a regular basis and monitored its position. A very small number of people remain — in single figures, I believe — and, as I pointed out, the supervisor will be responsible for dealing with redundancy claims. However, if the Member is suggesting that members of staff have not been treated properly with regard to redundancy matters, I would have no hesitation in consulting with my Colleague, the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Dr Farren, to investigate any matters that particularly pertained to that. Having carried out that investigation, I would then write to the Member accordingly.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Does the Minister agree that Ian Paisley Jnr should have used a recent opportunity to speak to potential investors and look for a replacement industry for Ballymena, rather than giving the total —

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. This is not a question about Mr Ian Paisley Jnr. Please put a question directly to the Minister.

Mr Gerry McHugh: The question is in relation to the Deasung plant. Instead of saying that the agreement is a failure and is not going to work but come and invest with us anyhow, the Member for South Antrim should have taken the opportunity to speak to investors or potential investors in an effort to look for a replacement industry.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I am a Member for North Antrim.

Sir Reg Empey: I am not exactly clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, what I am being required to respond to. What an individual Member does or does not do in his constituency with regard to seeking investors is, of course, a matter for him, although from correspondence and contact I have had with the questioner, I understand that he certainly appears to have an interest in these affairs.

Adria Ltd

Mr Derek Hussey: 2. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he is aware of the current short-time working at Adria Ltd plants; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO 108/00)

Sir Reg Empey: I am aware of the short-term working at Adria plants. I understand it is a temporary measure implemented by the company in response to current demand for its products.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am slightly disappointed that the Minister is not aware that the problem has been overcome, particularly in Strabane. At the same time I welcome the internal task force which has been set up by the textile industry with the help of the Department. The Minister will be aware that there is growing concern in the textile industry. Does he agree that a Harland & Wolff-type initiative is needed in those areas where there is an over-dependency upon one industry? Does the Minister also agree that an inter-agency action plan on diversification of the industrial base of such areas would be advantageous?

Sir Reg Empey: I am aware that the situation at Adria’s plants, some of which are in the Member’s constituency and some of which are not, varies. There is short-time working, certainly in Newry, and I understand the situation is connected largely to Marks and Spencer-related issues, which, of course, apply to more than just this company.
On the wider front, may I say to the Member that since I came into office I have been very conscious of the difficulties in the textile industry. The Department, through the Industrial Development Board (IDB), has appointed international consultants, KurtSalmon Associates, in partnership with the Northern Ireland Textile Association (NITA). This is not just another consultant’s report; this is an interactive working party made up of companies associated with the industry and the consultants. It is not simply a matter of consultants sending down a report. They are working together trying to prepare not simply a general report but a new strategy looking at our markets and our strengths.
The fact is that despite all the negativity there is still a very good textile industry in Northern Ireland, employing upwards of 16,000 people. It is the apparel side that has come in for the greatest difficulty. Stitching operations in particular have been extremely vulnerable to low labour cost economies in the FarEast and in NorthAfrica. What we are trying to do with the industry at the moment is focus on those areas where we have strength — areas where significant capital investment has been necessary. The Member will know that in his own constituency Adria is a highly organised capital intensive business, and it is difficult for people to get into that business from the FarEast and other locations.
The type of action plan I expect to emerge from this co-operation between the industry, the companies and the consultants is a strategy which will require a response from the Government. The IDB stands ready and waiting, and the report is targeted, at the moment, for the end of next month. I suspect that we will be hearing more. I will certainly wish to make a statement as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I concur with my council Colleague, Assemblyman Hussey, and share his concerns and fears. I am very concerned about the textile industry in Strabane and particularly in WestTyrone. The textile industry should receive the same kind of support and enthusiasm as the information and communications technology sector. It is easier to retain an existing job than create a new one. I ask the Minister if he would consider adopting a "buying Northern Ireland" campaign for all Government contracts so that people could be encouraged to check the labelling for country of origin and try to fight back against the multinationals flooding our retail market with foreign produce.

Sir Reg Empey: First of all, the Member has written to me on these matters before, and there is no lack of support or enthusiasm in my Department for this industry. I have spent a lot of my time dealing with it, interacting with the consultants and attending workshops for the industry and the consultants.
We are very focused on this because, as an industry, it is one of our largest employers. We must see it in a broader context than simply a Northern Ireland one, albeit our reliance on the industry is proportionally greater than that in the rest the UK.
I have no difficulty with a "buying Northern Ireland" campaign, but the Member knows — and he is a strong advocate of membership of the European Union — that there are limitations to what we can do. We cannot direct contracts to any particular company unless it is in the European Union. We are prohibited, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, better than I, from engaging in that sort of market direction. However, it is not impossible to devise mechanisms by which we can encourage people to buy locally.
The fact is that the bulk of the apparel is made for UK high street stores. That is where the difficulty arises. The Member knows, as well as I do, the pressures and competition that affect those multiples. Our ability to direct or encourage people is limited to what we are allowed to do under European Union regulations. I would be prepared to consider and support anything short of a breach of those regulations.

Mr George Savage: I am very encouraged to hear the Minister’s comments today. Can he give me an update on the factories in my own constituency at Lurgan and Donaghcloney?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a question that would be considered in order in this context.

Sir Reg Empey: The Member for Upper Bann, Mr Savage, is referring to the recent Courtaulds announcement. It is true that some of those factories are up for sale. I understand that nobody is applying pressure to make that sale be at a rate above what the market will stand. I hope that the response from potential buyers will be positive.

Small Businesses

Mr Kieran McCarthy: 3. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will outline his plans to draw up a small-business charter to promote and protect the interest of small businesses.
(AQO 139/00)

Sir Reg Empey: I have no plans to draw up a small business charter specifically for Northern Ireland. However, earlier this year the Council of the European Union endorsed a European Charter for small enterprises. The proposal for a charter originated in the United Kingdom, and it largely reflects our priorities for Northern Ireland.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Small businesses are a very important part of our economic well-being. Does the Minister acknowledge the high level of bureaucracy faced by small businesses? Many hours of valuable time are taken up by form filling of one sort or another. Has the Minister any plans to reduce this heavy burden on small businesses, thus giving them more time to generate, and go after, extra business?

Sir Reg Empey: I have heard that point made on a number of occasions, and I agree. Having been in business myself I know only too well that time spent filling in forms for someone else is time spent not making money for yourself. I agree entirely with that point. However, the vast majority of the work that companies are currently engaged in relates to national issues. Work needs to be carried out on National Insurance, VAT and PAYE requirements, which are the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament. Frankly, I see no immediate prospect of a reduction in that particular workload.
However, to ensure that no new unreasonable regulatory burdens are imposed on business, Northern Ireland Departments are required to complete a regulatory impact assessment on all legislation brought forward which affects business. When every piece of legislation is proofed for equality and such issues, it is also proofed for its regulatory impact.
One thing that will impact is the equality legislation and the issues therein. There flows a natural workload from that, particularly for companies above a certain size. While we have no plans to do something specifically for Northern Ireland, I can assure the Member that we are conscious of the point that he is making and we do proof, and will continue to proof, any proposed legislative activity. There is also a Government office, based in Whitehall, looking at regulatory requirements across the entire spectrum of government to see what can be simplified. The Weights and Measures Bill brought before this House was designed as one small measure in that direction. However, there are others, and there will be a flow of those over the years ahead.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: The majority of small businesses in Northern Ireland are run by women, and across the board they have lacked support. LEDU is usually in charge of that sector, and it is very selective in whom it supports. Would the Minister and his Department consider the Small Business Administration in America, which gives support to any type of small business? That could probably cut down on some of the bureaucracy.

Sir Reg Empey: I am conscious of the role played by women in small businesses. In fact, one of Northern Ireland’s successes has been in its creation of new small businesses. Our economy is dependent on them to a much greater extent than any other economy in these islands.
Therefore I am acutely aware that, while LEDU has to support selectively any business, it goes through a process of selection as to what constitutes a good project. The Member will be aware that a number of campaigns with European backing have been run that were specifically aimed at encouraging women into business. As a former member of Belfast City Council, she will also know that the economic development section specifically proposed and pursued a women in business programme, aided by the European Union and backed by the city council, directed at encouraging women to be in business.
The Member will also know that I invited Aida Alvarez, the administrator of the Small Business Administration, to come to Belfast. She came over in December 1998, following a visit we made to Boston, and she spoke with her officials and explained their proceedings. The Member will also be interested to know that in August, when I was in the United States with the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, we had a meeting with Mr Charles Tansey, her deputy, who went through the procedures as to how they assist people. They are achieving a very high success rate in attracting women into business. So we are very conscious of that.
As we move forward with restructuring we are looking continuously at the best ways of doing things. There is more than one way of moving forward. The Small Business Administration operates a loan guarantee scheme, which some people find more attractive than the particular proposals we currently use. However, I am open to any suggestions that might assist with, and aid, the further involvement of women in business.

Executive Agencies

Mr Billy Bell: 4. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he would outline his plans to review the organisation of agencies for which he has responsibility.
(AQO 117/00)

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: 12. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he has any plans to restructure the agencies for which he has responsibility.
(AQO130/00)

Mr Seamus Close: 13. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if he will outline his plans to create a single development agency.
(AQO 138/00)

Sir Reg Empey: I will answer questions 4, 12 and 13 together.
Further to the announcement in the Agenda for Government this July of the reorganisation of the economic development agencies, I am currently considering options for change and will consult as appropriate in the near future.

Mr Billy Bell: Will the Minister assure the House that he will have regard to the need for increased co-operation between the various regions of the United Kingdom in any reform he undertakes in his departmental organisations? Furthermore, in carrying out the review of these agencies, will he take into account the criticism of the IDB by the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster earlier this year in its report into inward investment?

Sir Reg Empey: With regard to the need for increased co-operation with other agencies in the United Kingdom, the Member will be interested to know that our Department is in contact with the Department of Trade and Industry in London on some matter or other every day. There is regular correspondence between myself, Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments.
He will also be interested to know that we have set up a restructuring branch within the Department to look at the question raised in the Agenda for Government. Researchers have been seconded to that branch. Detailed research has included a study of the methods adopted by and how they deliver service to industry in other regions of the United Kingdom, the European Union and further afield. In time, the results of this research will, it is hoped, influence the recommendations for the restructuring of our businesses which we make to the House.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Will the Minister undertake to ensure that whatever structural changes take place, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) will be expanded and strengthened and will not be buried under a heap of other larger organisations? We desperately need proactivity in innovation and development, and we run the risk of losing IRTU in one massive monolith.

Sir Reg Empey: May I apologise to Mr Bell for not dealing with the second part of his question? Perhaps I may slip it in before I respond to Dr McDonnell.
I am aware of the criticism of the IDB in the House of Commons report. A statement was issued by the IDB in response to that. The Minister of Finance and Personnel and I formally responded to the House of Commons on that matter. I can assure the Member that all of those lessons have been taken into account and learned.
Dr McDonnell knows my views well. I accept entirely that innovation and associated matters are the spine that must run right through the way in which the Department and its agencies deliver their service. If we are intending to have an innovative, knowledge-based economy, innovation issues, be they information-age matters or others, must be central to everything we do. I can assure the Member that whatever proposals come forward, the intricate systemic involvement of innovation and its related activities must be at the core. I do not intend to discuss the intricacies of what effect that may have on IRTU or on any particular part of the agency’s business. The clear principle is that innovation must be at the very genesis of whatever we do, otherwise we will inevitably fail to meet our other objectives.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister agree that having a single development agency would be a much more efficient use of public money? Does he also accept that this would help to redress the lack of confidence on the part of clients who feel that they are bounced from one agency to another and that their ideas and aspirations are strangled by red tape and bureaucracy?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member is inviting me to anticipate the outcome of the review, and I do not wish to do that. Our current agencies have developed over time — LEDU is 30 years old; the IDB is almost 20 years old; and IRTU is almost 10 years old. Industry, commerce, the economy and the nature of the businesses that we are operating have changed, as has methodology. There are developments today that we could not have imagined in the past. I am certainly taking that into account. I have heard criticisms about a lack of client confidence, and we have to listen to them. When our proposals are brought forward and put to the Committee, I have no doubt we will have the opportunity to thrash them out there and subsequently in the House. I am conscious of the points that he has made but regret that I am unable to give a more detailed answer at this stage.

Mr Gerry McHugh: My question has been pre-empted. I was going to ask whether the amalgamation of the IDB and LEDU would better fill the gaps in relation to small industries than the present set-up does.

Sir Reg Empey: Again, the Member is inviting me to be more specific. I am conscious that responsibility for inward investment is exclusively in the hands of IDB, which tends to deal with the larger companies. LEDU, which deals with the smaller companies, does not have a defined role in inward investment. I am aware of those points. There is, of course, the role of local authorities, as the Member knows. These are all matters that will be taken into account as the review goes forward, and I assure the House that there will be adequate opportunity for Members to express their views and to give advice on our proposals. The point that the Member makes is, undoubtedly, one of the central points that have to be taken into account.

Superhighway Telecommunications

Mr Eddie McGrady: 5. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment what steps he will take to ensure that the asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL) form of superhighway telecommunications will be extended to rural areas; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO112/00)

Sir Reg Empey: Detailed work is nearing completion on identification of the most appropriate technologies to ensure an internationally competitive, broadband infrastructure in Northern Ireland in terms of capacity, access and cost. ADSL is only one form of broadband technology so very careful consideration of technical, legal and consumer issues will be required before decisions are taken in the context of a privatised and independently regulated market.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I acknowledge that there are many other forms of superhighway that may be constructed, but the Minister wrote to me at an earlier stage and said that by September, which has now passed, he would have a report on this issue from the Industrial Research and Technology Unit. Has the Minister received that report and will he ensure that, when he gets it, there will be budget provision to enable this part of Ireland to keep abreast of modern developments in the telecommunications strategy? Will he follow the example of his counterpart in Wales, who arranged a partnership between local government, central Government and the private developer to provide such an exchange throughout the country, including rural areas? He probably knows that the intention is to have it in only the most urbanised areas, but that would be detrimental to the whole concept of targeting social need and the development of our countryside.

Sir Reg Empey: It is not my intention to have it confined to the most urbanised areas. That goes against the whole purpose of the facility, which is to create a level playing field for all parts of the community. Nothing could be further from my mind. I have not yet received the report; I am told that it is imminent. I want to study it carefully. As the Member knows, we are engaged in the exercise of budgetary provision right now. I have made appropriate bids to allow us to carry it out. I believe that it should be an integral part of our Programme for Government.
The Member will be aware that we have had a number of initiatives such as the Leapfrog Information Age Initiative. There is a range of technical matters. I do not have sufficient information at my disposal to say that ADSL is necessarily the right thing for Northern Ireland, but I can say to the Member that we are endeavouring to ensure that it goes outside the greater Belfast area. The Member will be aware that a network is developing and that it includes Downpatrick. The question of other provincial towns is one of great concern; we need a loop that goes round our major towns because if there is no access there, rural areas will have very little opportunity. I accept that there are equality and social issues. There is an opportunity to have an impact on the rural areas, particulary against the backdrop of the difficulties in agriculture. I assure the Member that it is a top priority issue in my Department.

Long-Term Unemployment: New TSN Proposal

Mr Roy Beggs: 6. asked the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment if the new targeting social need proposals identify and target areas of long-term unemployment; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO123/00)

Sir Reg Empey: Having considered the consultation responses to the ‘Vision into Practice’ document, I have decided that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment will continue to use its option of multiple-deprivation indicators to define areas of need. These indices have been supplemented with data on the long-term unemployed and will be reviewed next year when new deprivation indicators are developed.

Mr Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that as well as the number of long-term unemployed, the total number of unemployed would be an appropriate factor? Is he aware that as part of the draft criteria, 11 district council areas were selected and that Carrickfergus, which has the fifth-highest incidence of unemployment, was not included?

Sir Reg Empey: The Member and the Deputy Speaker have written to me on these matters on a number of occasions. I am very conscious of the fact that simply relying on the number of long-term unemployed is a particularly blunt instrument. I therefore supported a major review, which is due to be completed in the first half of next year. This will provide us with what we believe will be a more up-to-date mechanism for measuring disadvantage. I am also very conscious of the unemployment in the Carrickfergus area, particularly male unemployment, which is at a very high level.
In the meantime we will be confining ourselves to using the Robson criteria supplemented by data with regard to unemployment. By so doing, we hope to have as broad a measurement tool as we can at this stage. Clearly this measure is not the end of it; clearly it is not entirely satisfactory. I look forward to receiving the new proposals early next year as they will give a rise to more equitable distribution of assistance.

Higher Education: Number of Places

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 1. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what steps he has taken to increase the number of places in higher education in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 125/00)

Dr Sean Farren: I have taken a number of steps to increase the number of places in higher education in Northern Ireland. My endorsement of the phased expansion based on the outcome of the 1998 comprehensive spending review, and my announcement in the spring of this year of Government support for the Springvale educational project, were main initiatives. These measures should see some 4,200 additional higher full-time education places, phased in over the period from 1999 to 2004. I am also seeking resources for further increases in the current spending review, but, of course, I cannot prejudge the outcome.
Of the 4,200 places, some 1,600 have been allocated to the universities; 400 have been split evenly between the two former teacher education colleges, now St Mary’s University College and Stranmillis University College; and 600 have gone to further education colleges. The Springvale project will add a further 1,600 higher education places. I emphasise that all those figures are full-time equivalents.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is really good to see that so much time and effort have gone into this. Can the Minister also confirm for us just what proportion of the increased student places will be earmarked for courses relevant to the economy, and in particular to the IT sector?

Dr Sean Farren: I am grateful for that particular question. The bulk of places allocated are indeed earmarked under existing plans for economically relevant courses — for example, over 1,000 of the 1,600 places for the universities and all of the 600 places allocated to further education colleges are allocated on the basis of their relevance to economic development. Springvale, as I think many Members will appreciate, is also expected to emphasise an employment-related curriculum.
As regards the outcome of our current bids, the emphasis is on trying to secure additional places in those areas of the economy that need skills.
As for the allocation to IT courses, I do not have precise figures, but I would like to remind the House and the Member in question that the allocation of places to further education colleges was made on the basis of the colleges’ responses to bids that precisely identified areas such as IT as areas for which they would be allocated additional places. In my Department IT has a very high priority when we adopt the criterion of economic relevance when allocating additional higher education places.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I welcome what the Minister has said about additional places, but I would ask him this: does he recognise that the figures which have been outlined this afternoon almost certainly do not go far enough? They do not go far enough, first, if we compare them to the recommendations of the Dearing Report three years ago and the recommendations of the two universities; secondly, if we compare the number of places available here per head of population with the number available in Scotland; and thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, if we address the fact that two thirds of the students from Northern Ireland studying outside Northern Ireland have gone unwillingly. While the 4,000 places are welcome, they do not plug the gap.

Dr Sean Farren: The Member himself, and the members of the Committee, will appreciate very keenly what it was that Dearing recommended a number of years ago. The figure 4,200 goes a long way towards meeting the 5,000 target that was set down at that time. As I said in response to the initial question, I am bidding for resources to enable us to go beyond what we had already planned for the period 1999 to 2004, and I trust that these resources will be made available. We have to wait for the outcome of the current budgetary negotiations before we will know what those resources will be.
Many of our young people do indeed go "unwillingly" to pursue further, and in particular higher, education across the water. In consultation with the universities and the colleges of further and higher education we plan to make enough places available in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is as little "unwillingness" as possible and that students do not have to go outside Northern Ireland to pursue further and higher education.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the additional places in higher education, but will the Minister assure us that equal attention will be paid to the need for positions in colleges of further education?

Ms Jane Morrice: This is not related to the question at hand.

Unemployment: Training Programmes

Ms Mary Nelis: 2. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment what plans he has to reallocate funding from the New Deal programme to alternative training programmes to address the problem of unemployment blackspots.
(AQO 141/00)

Dr Sean Farren: As I think Members will fully appreciate from the discussion we had here only two or three weeks ago, funding for the New Deal programme is currently ring-fenced. It can be used only for New Deal purposes and cannot be reallocated to another programme. If the situation were to change, this could have an impact on future planning for the provision of training for the unemployed.
It is important to note that alternative programmes such as Bridge to Employment, whereby customised training is provided for the unemployed so they can seek job opportunities in particular enterprises, and Worktrack, which is directed at the needs of female returnees to the workforce, are currently available to help the long-term unemployed back into the workforce.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat. I appreciate the Minister’s response, for we know that £163 million of New Deal money has been ring-fenced and imagine that, with such a huge budget, it is addressing unemployment black spots and new training initiatives. However, have there been any recommendations for change in the allocation of New Deal funding to assist the over-25 age group to access the Education and Training Opportunities scheme without their being in receipt of the jobseeker’s allowance for 18 months? I say that in the light of continuing job losses in the Foyle constituency and the need to examine local labour markets and conditions in broad terms to ascertain the level and type of vacancies and the skills required. Does the Minister have any plans to reallocate funding for any potential new investments?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member, like all those present when we debated New Deal several weeks ago, will recall that in my contribution to that discussion I said that, in reviewing New Deal, a number of proposals had arisen and are currently being discussed. Among them were questions of how we might better serve and target the needs of the long-term unemployed. Correspondence has been entered into with my opposite number in London, and we should like to think that we will be in a position to take decisions based on those recommendations with respect to programmes commencing next spring.

Third-Level Students: Financial Provision

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 3. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment how he intends to ensure a fair deal in financial terms for third- level students; and if he will make a statement.
(AQO115/00)

Mrs Eileen Bell: 9. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will make a statement on progress made towards the abolition of tuition fees for students in Northern Ireland.
(AQO135/00)

Dr Sean Farren: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I propose to take questions 3 and 9 together, since they address the same issue.
The review of student finance that I initiated last February will be concluded in the near future. I plan to announce my decisions then, but not before. The House and the Committee will have a full opportunity to deliberate on them.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I understand that the Minister does not wish to reveal his hand at this stage. However, when he comes to do so, will he take into account his election manifesto commitment to support young people through education, training and investment? Can the Minister assure the House that that support will be realised not just in the delivery and provision of education, but also in financial terms? Will he support in his review the abolition of parental or spouse’s contributions towards undergraduate tuition fees for Northern Ireland students? Will he introduce a grant system to encourage the socially deprived to avail of the educational opportunities available?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member asked supplementary questions to which, as he acknowledged in his introductory remarks, I am not in a position to give answers. He said that he appreciated that I could not show my hand, but then invited me to do so. Since I do not have anything in my hand to reveal at the moment, I can certainly show it to him. As I said in my initial response, I shall address the issues under the terms of reference set down when the review was announced, and I am sure that the Member is very familiar with those.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: The Minister, in his reply, referred to the review that he hoped would be concluded in the near future. Can he confirm that the outcome of the review, whatever it may be, will be in place for the intake of students to higher education next September?

Dr Sean Farren: It was my intention to have any proposals which are adopted following this review implemented as soon as possible. I can assure the Member that it is certainly my intention that they be put into effect without delay.

Mr John Dallat: Will the Minister give an assurance that resources for further education will be on his mind when he eventually makes his report?

Dr Sean Farren: If by the phrase "resources for further education" the Member is pointing to the terms of reference of the review, which encompasses the needs of students of further education, full-time and part-time, I can assure him that it will address their particular needs.

Harland & Wolff: Redundancies

Mrs Joan Carson: 4. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to outline what action has been taken by the Training and Employment Agency in response to the redundancies announced by Harland & Wolff.
(AQO 119/00)

Dr Sean Farren: The Training and Employment Agency has established a jobcentre in Harland & Wolff to give immediate and wide-ranging assistance to those made redundant. In addition, to help with job applications, agency staff provide guidance services and advice on retraining opportunities. Specialist advice on redundancy payments, benefit entitlements and self-employment is also available.
By the evening of Friday 6 October, 337 employees being made redundant had received advice. Of these, 77 have already been referred to companies with job vacancies. The Training and Employment Agency is leading the task force, the membership of which was announced by Sir Reg Empey, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and myself.

Mrs Joan Carson: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. Does he agree that certain large employers in Northern Ireland are free-riding on the training system? They wait for others to pay the cost of training and depend on other people to train workers to craft skill levels.

Dr Sean Farren: I find the question difficult to respond to. I would not accept the suggestion that large employers are freeloading or free-riding on the training programmes. If there are particular instances of any abuse, that the questioner has in mind, I would welcome such evidence and have officials in my Department investigate. The Training and Employment Agency and training providers have been working diligently within the terms of the various training programmes to ensure that we have a skilled workforce.
With respect to sad situations such as that in Harland & Wolff, through the efforts that I have indicated in my initial response, workers who wish to make themselves available for re-employment in other enterprises are given knowledge of vacancies. Those who wish to retrain or obtain additional skills are advised of the opportunities available to them.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Can the Minister tell us the make-up of the task force established in the wake of the Harland & Wolff redundancies? Also, what is the input from the east Belfast community to the work of that task force?

Dr Sean Farren: The task force is chaired by the chief executive officer of the Training and Employment Agency. There are officials from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and from my own Department, and two outsiders, one of whom is a prominent member of the east Belfast community. Through his participation, the general concerns of that community are reflected to the task force and taken into full consideration in its deliberations.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that his response has created a precedent? Will this initiative be put in place in all areas where major job losses occur?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member can be assured that wherever there have been major job losses, the Training and Employment Agency has been very proactive, and that where job losses are being anticipated, discussions have been entered into between officials of my Department and officials in the enterprise concerned. We will ensure, insofar as we possibly can, that the kind of action that has been taken with respect to Harland&Wolff will be taken and has been taken there as well. Careful attention is paid to such situations and there have been several examples of the Training and Employment Agency becoming involved in a similar way to what they are doing with Harland&Wolff.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Minister ensure that, as well as helping those made redundant from Harland&Wolff, his Department pays close attention to the people involved in some of the specialist subcontractors that are heavily tied to Harland& Wolff? Those people may also find difficulties in future employment.

Dr Sean Farren: The terms of reference for the task force will ensure that any concerns such as those highlighted by the Member can be addressed. If he has any particular concerns in this regard, he should draw them to my attention or the attention of the task force.

Foundation Degree Proposal

Mr Jim Wilson: 5. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he will confirm that the foundation degree proposal is appropriate for Northern Ireland.
(AQO 118/00)

Dr Sean Farren: Having considered the Department for Education and Employment’s foundation degree proposals and underlying rationale, I have commissioned pilot schemes, to be led by the university sector, in order to determine the suitability of introducing this type of degree in areas of high skill demand in Northern Ireland. The pilot schemes will be led by the universities, but they will be working in very close co-operation with a number of the further and higher education colleges, and there will be significant employer involvement in the development of courses related to foundation degrees.

Mr Jim Wilson: Many studies have suggested that the main strength of the training systems in continental countries such as France, Germany and the Netherlands, relative to the United Kingdom, lies at the level of the technician, that is to say sub-degree qualifications such as the Higher National Diploma (HND). Why does the Minister not concentrate on developing an existing qualification such as the HND rather than introducing an entirely new one?

Dr Sean Farren: The Member refers to the underlying philosophy of the foundation degree proposals. Perhaps if I outline the purposes of the foundation degree, he and the House will better appreciate its particular relevance and significance.
The proposals have several purposes. First, to increase the supply of highly-skilled technicians and associated professionals in areas of the economy where they are needed. There is a strong focus on the supply of highly- skilled technicians to forge new alliances between employers, universities and further education colleges. This includes fusing the academic and vocational paths to high level qualifications, meaning that those exiting from foundation degrees would have the opportunity to proceed to higher degrees — to a full undergraduate degree or beyond. There is a generally identified need for HND and HNC courses which is not being fully met in the current provision, and which the foundation degree will address. Given that there is this three-way involvement of universities, which validate and help to develop the course, the further education colleges, which are involved at the point of delivery and the employers which are involved, along with the universities and the colleges, in the design of the curricula, we will have a new and very important synergy created between all three, which will address the points that the Member is concerned about.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: How will the introduction of the foundation degrees benefit both the students and the Northern Ireland economy? What are the main features of the foundation degree?

Dr Sean Farren: The foundation degrees are intended to have five essential core features. First, as I have indicated, employers will be involved in the design, recognition and review of the qualifications. This is very important. With respect to training programmes, we have gathered a lot of experience from employers in recent years. Regarding vocational programmes, employers have requested involvement, from the beginning, in the design and provision of courses with a vocational dimension — or with vocational objectives associated with them. That is very important. I hope that there will be a very generous and warm response from employers to their involvement in the new pilot degree programmes.
Secondly, technical and sector-specific skills and generic skills should be underpinned by rigorous academic learning. This will be a feature of their delivery, and I trust that will be ensured by the involvement of the universities.
Thirdly, students should develop work-relevant skills through an understanding of the workplace. As part of the programme of study, students will become part of the workforce in the skill area in which they are being trained. We want to see these degrees made available in a way that will enable them to be transferable. On several occasions I have highlighted the necessity to have ladders of opportunity which will allow students, particularly those starting at the post-compulsory school years, to enter and to transfer across and up various roads, or ladders, of progression to the highest level that their ambition and ability will take them. This characteristic will be part of the foundation degrees from the outset.
Obviously, that will ensure that they can progress through to honours degrees at undergraduate level as indicated, post-graduate studies, and perhaps also to research study. The underlying message has to be that these courses, in the first instance, are intended to be economically relevant, and that is highlighted by the involvement of employers at the very outset. I trust that in that way the courses will meet the needs of Northern Ireland students as the Member suggested they should.

Ms Jane Morrice: I must move on to the last question, and I advise Members that we have a very short time left.

Post-Graduate Science Students: Grants

Mr David Ford: 6. asked the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment if he intends to increase grants to post-graduate science students, in line with proposed increases in England and Wales.
(AQO134/00)

Dr Sean Farren: My Department will maintain parity with the stipend increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the 2000-01 academic year. In order to maintain parity beyond that date, my Department will require additional resources, and as Members in the House know, that is an exercise in which all Executive Ministers are currently engaged.

Mr David Ford: Will the Minister agree — given that a well qualified workforce, particularly in science and technology, is so important to our economic prospects in the future — to maintain the level of grants so that we do not lose students to England and Wales and to make this one of his highest priorities?

Dr Sean Farren: I agree. By way of general observation, it is important that we should note that that is not just important here in Northern Ireland, but in the universities of Britain, the South, and those in the United States, as I discovered when I was there last week.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
There are severe pressures, which make it very difficult to retain research students given the high levels of competition for their skills. Those who are researching in new technologies are in high demand in the economy and difficulty in retaining them is something which universities in many places are also experiencing. We are obviously concerned that we do not lose research students and that we take steps to ensure insofar as our resources allow that we can retain them.

Mr Speaker: The time for this group of questions is up.

Social Development

Fuel Prices

Mr Eddie McGrady: 1. asked the Minister for Social Development if he will make a statement on the impact on low-income families of high fuel prices in Northern Ireland.
(AQO 109/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: My interest in fuel prices relates mainly to their impact on domestic heating costs. It is estimated that there are approximately 170,000 households at risk from fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. Clearly an increase in fuel prices could exacerbate their situation. I would be concerned, therefore, that a sustained period of high fuel prices could push more people into fuel poverty. The present concern about fuel costs has been brought about by the recent increase in oil prices. I trust that the present high cost of oil is temporary and that the market will stabilise at a lower level.
Fortunately oil is not the main heating source for many of the households at greatest risk. In my written answer to MrMcGrady’s question on 5 October about current schemes available in relation to energy conservation in the home, I identified heating and insulation schemes designed to help low-income families. I also referred to the proposals to introduce a revised domestic energy efficiency scheme with effect from 1April 2001. Additionally, the winter fuel payment has been extended this year to include men as well as women from age 60, and the level of help has been increased to £150. While these measures will not resolve the problem, they will nonetheless lessen the impact of the high fuel prices.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive reply, the second part of which dealt with energy conservation. The question on the Order Paper refers to the impact of high fuel prices on low-income families. Is the Minister aware that many families on low income applying to the Social Security Agency for assistance and loans to pay for fuel, oil and electricity to keep their young families warm are actually refused? They are very often refused on the basis that there are inadequate budgets to deal with them.
Will the Minister today undertake to instigate an immediate review of this situation? We have due and proper concern for the elderly; we should also have a similar concern for young families in low-income households who cannot now pay for heat, light and fuel for cooking. Please can that be made a matter of urgency?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I can assure the Member that I very concerned about the whole spectrum of heating and fuel poverty among young people, families and the elderly. My Department is very conscious of their needs, and we will be looking at this on an ongoing basis and keeping it very much under review. I can assure the Member that we do not take the matter lightly and that everything that can be done will be done to ensure that no one falls within the poverty trap of coldness.
Many people die from cold-related illnesses every year, and that greatly concerns us. We have taken steps to deal with many aspects of the problem, and I assure the Member that we are treating it very seriously and will continue to do so in the future.

Mr Roy Beggs: Is the Minister aware that some Housing Executive tenants still rely on direct electricity for heating their homes? This frequently happens in flats where there are low-income families. Will he give an undertaking that alternative forms of more efficient heating will be provided, as a priority, to those homes?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The question that the Member asks is a very wide-ranging one. Nevertheless, as I said earlier to MrMcGrady, I can give the assurance that we will be looking at all aspects of this matter. We are concerned about the whole issue of families on low incomes and the current high cost of heating oil, although we have also stated that that is not the main source of heating for those people. I can give the Member an assurance that we will be keeping these matters under constant observation.

Social Security Appeals

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: 2. asked the Minister for Social Development how many social security appeals are upheld (a) at review and (b) at appeal tribunal, and if he will give a breakdown of the statistics for each benefit.
(AQO 116/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The new decision making and appeal procedures have been phased in by the Social Security Agency since July1999. In the year following their introduction, the total number of reconsiderations upheld in favour of the customer at 31August2000 was 2,687, or 17·3%. The total number of appeals upheld by the appeals service since the introduction of the decision making and appeals procedure at 31August2000 was 1,679, or 27%.
I have prepared a detailed breakdown of these statistics by individual benefit, and with your permission, MrSpeaker, I will place that in the Library. I could go into all the details now, but I suspect that that may not be to the advantage of the Assembly. There are many figures here, and it would take a long time to break them down. They will, however, be in the Library for anyone who wants to have a look at them.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I appreciate the Minister’s answer and the fact that he does not want to waste the time of the House in going through the lists. I will certainly take time to study his answer in detail because some of those benefits are of great intereset to me.
I want to ask the Minister about the panels at appeal tribunals. He is aware that they have undergone some major changes in relation to the lay representation on them. Can he inform the House as to whether he has received any correspondence which indicates alarm at the lack of lay representation on the appeal tribunals? Does he have any intention of examining the operation of appeal tribunals in Northern Ireland?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I will deal generally with the matter that the Member has raised. It is not an efficient use of resources to have a legally qualified chairman and panel members in respect of all cases. It has made hearings difficult to arrange and contributed to delays in waiting times for appeals. The new system is designed to ensure that appeals are heard by an appropriate number of people who have the relevant expertise to deal with all the issues raised. Flexible tribunal composition will help to shorten the time appeals take to reach a conclusion.
Tribunals are held locally throughout Northern Ireland, and in practice, therefore, tribunals will continue to have links with the locality in which they sit. Tribunals consist of one, two or three members selected by the president of a panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor. All tribunals must have a legally qualified member. Regulations set out the circumstances in which a tribunal shall also have a medically qualified panel member and a financially qualified panel member.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Does the Minister agree that there needs to be considerable communication in the process of appeals and reviews? I represent constituents who spend a great deal of time trying to contact by telephone the appropriate bodies and agencies in and around Belfast. The majority cannot afford the high cost of telephone calls. Will the Minister consider setting up a Freefone system or a local rate charge throughout Northern Ireland for people who have difficulties contacting the relevant agencies or bodies?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The Member has asked a lot of questions, and I may not be able to answer them all. However, I will make an honest attempt, and if I miss anything I will return to the Member.
He raises the issue of a telephone system being introduced. There is no reason why that cannot be looked at, but I cannot give him any assurance as to what the outcome will be. However, it is fair and reasonable for my Department to look at that situation, and perhaps we will come back to it.
The Member raised other matters — I am not sure whether I got the gist of them. Decision making and appeals were introduced to improve the accuracy of decisions and the security of benefit payments, as well as to provide a better, more responsive service to the public. I trust that that is now happening, although I do take on board what the Member said. I represent a rural constituency some distance from Belfast so I have some affinity with the Member’s comments. The telephone system that the Member mentioned can and will be looked at.

Town Centre Reinvigoration

Mrs Eileen Bell: 3. asked the Minister for Social Development when he plans to present the Assembly with the outcome of the Northern Ireland town centre reinvigoration study, along with his policy conclusions.
(AQO 132/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The former Department of the Environment commissioned consultants to report on town centres to ensure that those outside Belfast and Londonderry were thriving and healthy. The Department for Social Development is taking the lead on this in consultation with other relevant Departments. I have asked officials to arrange a conference in Armagh on 26 October where a wide range of interests will focus on the key issues of the report. I anticipate that consideration of the consultants’ report will be completed later this year. I will then consult with appropriate Ministers and decide whether this is a matter to be brought before the Assembly. In the meantime, a copy of the consultants’ report has been deposited in the Assembly Library.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer, and I hope that the conference will go some way to some concerns. However, does the Minister agree that delays in the outcome of this town centre reinvigoration study is causing problems to some traditional town centres and that full information should be given as soon as possible?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I accept that in the absence of the report there is some hold-up, or what may be perceived as a hold-up, in towns across the Province. Nevertheless, it is almost impossible to move at a faster speed, and I assure the Member that all due care and consideration is being given to the matter. However, I accept the point, and it will be pursued with due haste.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is there any relationship between the town centre reinvigoration study and the statement that the Minister issued on 28 September regarding the £8·6 million for inner north Belfast? I see from the notes with the statement — and I welcome the fact — that the Minister is working in conjunction with the North/South committees.
Is the Minister working with the rest of the Executive on this? Has he consulted his Executive Colleagues?

Mr Speaker: I was not aware that this study dealt with any part of Belfast, but I will leave that to the Minister.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The quick answer to Dr McDonnell’s question is "No". It has nothing to do with it. I do not see the relevance of the next part of the question on the North/South body. Can the Member clarify that?

Mr Speaker: There is some confusion as to what the town centre reinvigoration study is about. The supplementary question seemed to be on a different matter.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: I note what the Minister says about the town centre reinvigoration study. Perhaps it could be brought before the Assembly at a future date. Does the Minister accept that an important consideration is how we can deal with the antisocial behaviour which is so prevalent in many towns? What consideration will the study give to that aspect of our social structure and the stability of our town centres?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not see that as a function of the study, but I can sympathise with the Member. Antisocial behaviour is a menace right across the Province. It is not confined to any particular town; rural areas are also aware of the problem. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to give the impression that this study will deal with antisocial behaviour.

Housing Executive Rents

Mr Seamus Close: 4. asked the Minister for Social Development when he will stop increasing Housing Executive rents at a rate in excess of inflation.
(AQO131/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I smiled when I read this question. I have never increased Housing Executive rents. It would be difficult for me to stop something that I had never started. I have been in consultation with the Social Development Committee on Housing Executive rents for 2001 and 2002, and I await their consideration before taking a final decision.

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome the Minister’s stout rebuttal of the question and his indignation about HousingExecutive rents being increased above inflation. I seek his assurance to the House, but more importantly to Housing Executive tenants, that rents will not increase by a level above inflation for 2001-02.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am being misinterpreted. I did not mention any percentages, I simply stated that I have never increased Housing Executive rents because I have never been in the position to do so. At this stage I cannot inform the Assembly what future Housing Executive rents will be. No decision has been taken on the level of rents. I am in consultation with the Social Development Committee, and I look forward to their response.

Mr Fred Cobain: Will the Minister give an assurance that if rents are not increased by GDP plus 2%, there will be no reduction in overall expenditure by the Housing Executive in areas such as replacement grants or fuel poverty schemes?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I cannot give any assurance at this time as to rent levels. I cannot say whether the level will be GDP plus 2%, plus 1%, plus 4% or zero. I cannot do that. No decision has as yet been made. I keep repeating that I have had a meeting with Mr Cobain’s Committee, and he knows what happened at that Committee. He knows the questions I have put down and the response that I am waiting for, and he knows that I want to take on board all that the Committee has said, but as yet I have had no response. That is no criticism of the Committee Members. They are not yet in a position to respond, but until I get their response and see what their priorities are, now that they are in possession of all the facts and know all the implications, I cannot give an answer other than the one I have already given.

Rev William McCrea: Does my hon Friend and Minister agree that it would assist him greatly if the Committee and the Assembly agreed to allow his Department to retain the money in respect of house sales that is currently being taken away from it? Last year £13million was removed from the house sales budget. Would it not help him enormously if this House were unanimously to agree that house sale money be kept by his Department? That would allow him to take many of the necessary actions on fuel poverty, while keeping rents low.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The quick answer is "Yes, yes, yes, yes", and I thank the Member for putting the question. With regard to looking for extra finance for housing, I am also on record as asking for the support of the Social Development Committee and the Assembly. I take the Member at face value and say "Yes, yes, yes" every time.

Housing Executive Budgets

Sir John Gorman: 5. asked the Minister for Social Development what will be the impact on Housing Executive budgets if the formula of inflation plus 2% is applied for each of the next three years to Housing Executive budgets.
(AQO 121/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The formula of inflation plus 2% is not applied to the Housing Executive’s budget. For planning purposes only, an assumption is made on future rental income based on rents increasing by GDP plus 2%. I have not yet made any decisions on actual future rent increases.

Sir John Gorman: I thank the Minister for his reply, which sounded to me like another "Yes". May I ask him what plans he has to eradicate the high level of urgent housing need? There are 23,000 people on the waiting list, of whom 12,000 are in urgent need. There are 44,000 homes unfit for human habitation in the Province, mostly in rural areas, although some are in Belfast. He must have some plans to modernise Housing Executive dwellings.
May I mention another point which may or may not have come to his notice? The reduction in the number of unemployed people has led to the fact that a considerable number — Housing Executive tenants mostly — now fall outside housing benefit. Last year there were 4,000. Those people, who are mostly on low incomes, are going to find it extremely difficult to pay their rent, and we may well see a sharp increase in arrears. I would like to know what plans he has to deal with these matters.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The point that the Member raises is of great concern to me and my Department. He is quite right when he says that there is a very urgent housing need, particularly in places such as north Belfast, Londonderry and some of our rural towns and villages. There is a substantial waiting list. Without resources and finance, we cannot adequately and properly tackle this great need. It is a known fact that there are currently 25,000 people on the waiting list.
We cannot tackle this problem without resources. It will not surprise the Assembly to hear that in recent years housing has moved down the priority list. That is unfortunate, and it is not right, but it is the case. Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of home ownership in any region in the United Kingdom — 71%. It would be a fatal mistake if the Housing Executive were to be penalised because of the lack of funds needed to tackle the problems that SirJohn has raised. I ask him, and the Assembly, to support us in getting the funds and the necessary resources to put into housing. We do not want to be penalised because of the good job that the Housing Executive has done in recent years, providing good housing stock.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Minister’s comments about Housing Executive budgets. I also agree that, having asked the Social Development Committee for its views, it would be quite wrong — indeed, it would leave the Minister open to criticism in this House by members of that Committee and others — if he were to pre-empt its views and make an announcement today on rents. Does he recall the commitment which I made in this House when I held his position to index Housing Executive rent increases as closely as possible to inflation? Can he confirm that this remains his intention, indeed his policy?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I could say "Yes, yes, yes", but I will be a wee bit more explanatory. It is true that MrDodds is on record as having said that rent increases would be kept to a minimum, and I am also giving that assurance today. Furthermore, it would be quite ridiculous for me to come to the House and say anything about future rent increases, bearing in mind Mr Dodds’s reminder to the House that I have referred the matter to the Committee. It would be very discourteous of me to try to pre-empt what the Committee might say on this matter, and I have no intention of doing so. I am waiting with bated breath for the thoughts of the Committee in the not-too-distant future. I have no doubt that it, like myself, will have the interests of the Housing Executive tenants at heart, and I look forward to its response. I hope that that reassures the Member.

Urban Regeneration

Mr David Ford: 6. asked the Minister for Social Development what plans he has to introduce legislation to enable local councils to facilitate urban regeneration.
(AQO 133/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: Many district councils are active in facilitating aspects of urban regeneration and partnership arrangements with my Department and others. I have no plans to introduce legislation on their powers and functions. Any such changes would be the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. However, in the first instance they would presumably have to be considered in the context of any future review of public administration in Northern Ireland.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am afraid that I cannot thank him for its content. I accept that his answer has perhaps been pre-empted by the Minister of the Environment, who made certain announcements at the Waterfront Hall on Saturday. Will the Minister not agree with me that we cannot have a Laganside in every district council area? There are huge problems with urban regeneration right across the Province in response to which district councils are the best placed organisations to take a lead. Will he give an assurance that he will at least discuss with MrFoster how the two Departments can co-operate on such legislation?

Mr Maurice Morrow: On the first point, I can assure the Member that what was said at the Waterfront had no impact on my reply.
Regarding the other points, I am considering a number of options that have been developed by my officials. The Social Development Committee will be consulted shortly. I want to keep the Committee on board because I see it as a vital part of the whole mechanism that we are trying to put together. Unless, or until, consultation takes place, I cannot give the Member any more assurances, but all aspects of the issue will be looked at, including co-operation with the Department of the Environment.

Housing: Legislative Proposals

Mr Eamonn ONeill: 7. asked the Minister for Social Development if he will provide a timetable for the introduction of legislative proposals in respect of housing.
(AQO126/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The legislative programme for the current Assembly session includes a major Housing Bill. Later this month I intend to submit a policy memorandum about the Bill to the Executive Committee and I hope that it will be possible to bring the Bill to Committee Stage before the summer recess. It is likely to be spring 2002 before the Bill completes all the legislative stages.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Many important issues will be contained in that Bill. One item which is missing from the information that has been provided to Members to date is the role of the Housing Executive vis-à-vis housing associations. It was intended originally that this should be included, and it was to have been included in the Bill proposed in 1998. Can the Minister tell me why it is not being included now?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I understand there is some disquiet about this matter. I also understand that the Committee is deliberating on this, and I am waiting to hear its views. This matter exercises the Committee as it does Mr ONeill, so I can assure him that it will not be glossed over. I am looking forward to hearing from the Social Development Committee and have no doubt that Mr ONeill has had an input. Once my Department gets that response, I will be in a better position to give a fuller answer.

Fuel Allowance

Mr David McClarty: 8. asked the Minister for Social Development if he will extend the £2,000 fuel allowance, payable to people over 60 years of age on income- related benefit, to those below the age of 60 years who are chronically ill, and if he will make a statement.
(AQO120/00)

Mr Maurice Morrow: The consultation period on the new domestic energy efficiency scheme proposals has just ended, and my officials are considering the responses received. At this stage I am not in a position to say whether the scheme will be revised in the light of representations made. I will, however, ask that the Member’s request be considered along with the responses received.

Mr David McClarty: Does the Minister agree that this is a moral issue as well as a financial one? Surely it is wrong that those who are over 60 years of age and in good health should qualify for £2,000 while those who are under the age of 60 and have a chronic illness do not qualify. In fact, they qualify for a considerably smaller sum.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I take the point, and I will look at this again before coming back with more details.

First Minister

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly has no confidence in the First Minister. — [Mr P Robinson]

Mr Eddie McGrady: During the debate this morning, the Gallery was full of school children who had come to learn how to behave in future life, to hear about the problems we have in Northern Ireland and to get some understanding of how we address them. Regrettably, what they were exposed to was another rant around another course, as we have experienced so often in the Chamber. What we were treated to was political internecine warfare among the Unionist parties. That is not the business of this Assembly.
In proposing the motion, the hon Member Mr Robinson took 15 minutes to explain its legitimacy. I thought that the amount of time spent on it quite clearly illustrated its illegitimacy. He dealt with the Ulster Unionist Party in all its works and pomps, and he dealt with policing and decommissioning, which are not matters for this Assembly.He did not promote or propose the motion in relation to any item that referred to the office of First Minister. The purpose of the motion is to declare that the Assembly has no confidence in the First Minister as an officer or as a Minister, not as the leader of a party.
It would have been unsurprising, Mr Speaker, had you at that point ruled the contributions made by the proposer as irrelevant, if not repetitious. They were repetitious and irrelevant, because none of the points made in the motion related to the office of First Minister. Therefore I cannot see how the Assembly could pass a vote of no confidence, as no reference was made to the work of the First Minister. In retrospect, no argument was made at all.
We have heard these arguments before, outside the Chamber and on every political platform. It is quite legitimate for parties to score political points off one another and gain political advantage. It is not legitimate to bastardise the Chamber in the process. The Chamber is representative of all the people of Northern Ireland.We should be — and we are — addressing the bread-and-butter economic and social issues.
Most people outside the Assembly would consider this a repetitious motion. It has been expressed in different forms before, but the purpose is the same. There is internecine political warfare between the Unionist parties to see who will come out as the big chief at the end of the day. There are many little chiefs throughout Northern Ireland who want to get on and live their lives in some sort of peace and stability. They want us to set down the programmes to enhance their economic prospects and provide them with a better social life and way of living. That is what the Assembly should be about. All that internecine stuff should be kept where it belongs, namely the political platforms outside the Assembly.
The purpose of the motion is to destroy the Assembly. It is not concerned with whether the First Minister is fulfilling his office or not. The purpose is to destroy the Assembly and all that it is trying to do for the people of Northern Ireland, with the support of the majority of the population. The motion brings the Assembly into disrepute, which will be to the advantage of those supporting the motion. Let us not pretend: we see, we hear, and we know what this motion is all about.
We have tried, from our different political perspectives, to establish a new way of life in Northern Ireland. The Assembly, its offices, the Committees, the Ministers, the Chairmen of Committees and all the Members represent the only thing that we have been able to come up with in the past 30 years of most extreme violence. Those who propose such motions have not provided one iota of an alternative that would be viable and could work in this community.
I remember so vividly when peace was declared two years ago. An enormous weight was lifted off my shoulders. I could physically feel it being lifted, and I know that other members of my community and others felt the same. We had hope for a new era of peace. Peace will not come with the turn of a key — it will be a process. I have said many times that after 30 years of violence we could not expect violence to be totally switched off. But we do have — [Interruption] I have only started, and I am not going to give way. [Interruption]
Thank you for listening. I, along with others, felt great relief. It might not have suited your political agenda, but I am sure you were relieved, at least, that violence as we had had it for 30 years had ceased. This institution, with all its attributes, is a result of that peace process. [Interruption] I am not going to give way. [Interruption] I am not going to give way. [Interruption] I am not going to give way until it suits me. The Member may laugh, but I am on a serious tack. I understand his humour, but we are not dealing with a humorous subject. All the jeers and the catcalling will not deny the fact that the DUP, in this motion, is set on a purely destructive course with no alternative, and no hope to offer the people of Northern Ireland.
It is about denial; it is about negativism; it is about getting rid of David Trimble at all costs. You are saying "To hell with the people of Northern Ireland — get rid of David Trimble!" You did it before. You did it with Terence O’Neill. You did it with Chichester-Clark. You did it with Brian Faulkner. Now you are trying to do it with David Trimble. The only one you did not try to do it with was Molyneaux, because he sat doing nothing during all the years of violence when people were being blown up all around us. You had nothing to offer the people at that time, and you have not offered them anything since.
So here is another target, and you can turn everything into an attack on personalities. We are getting attacks on the personalities of one Minister after another. That is all we are getting. We are getting no constructive proposals for alternatives. There was no mention of the reality of the situation in the contribution made by the hon Member for East Belfast. We have simply been engaged in a political process today. The people out there — and those young people sitting up in those Galleries above us — heard what was going on today. They saw what was going on, and they know what was going on in the negativism of the motion and in the choruses behind, alto and soprano, going "Yeah, yeah" and "Yah, yah". That is what they saw. That was the example they got of what politics is like at this moment in Northern Ireland.
Good God, can we not give them something better to look forward to? Can we not give them some encouragement to activate the political process instead of having most of them running away from it? Could we not bring them in to the advent of democracy and political representation? Could we not encourage them by the example we give them in this House to make their contribution to our society? [Interruption]
You can catcall as much as you like. The reality of the situation is that we have a motion in front of us to destroy this institution and all that it is hoping to achieve. With that institution will go all the aspirations of the people of Northern Ireland for a peaceful and a better economic life. If you destroy this institution, and have nothing to put in its place — and you have nothing — then you are also affecting the whole economic process, the whole economic development to which we all aspire.
We will be left behind. Do not kid yourselves — we will be left behind. But who will pick up the tab? It will not be the gentlemen on those Benches. The ordinary man and woman in the street will pick up the tab of deprived incomes and poorer social situations.
On top of that you are giving encouragement through this motion to those in the community who are still trying to use violence in the pursuance of political objectives. It is totally indefensible that you have abused this Chamber for purely party political progress and opportunism. I have not heard a single argument as to what was wrong with the Office of the FirstMinister and the Deputy FirstMinister, or this Minister or that Minister in terms of the performance of their duties to this House and to the community. That was what this motion was allegedly to have been about, but it failed miserably.
The very day we open the Civic Forum in Belfast — [Interruption]

Mr Peter Robinson: It is a waste of money.

Mr Eddie McGrady: They laugh at the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. They laugh at those sections of the people of Northern Ireland who want to have a say in how they are administered and who want a platform to give us advice from their own experiences as to how they want this country to be run. They sneer, they jeer, they laugh at them. I hope they will reap their political reward for that.
As I was saying, on the day that the Civic Forum was inaugurated, when we were giving hope to and enfranchising another large section of the community, we have this debacle, this hypocrisy on the Floor of the House. What sort of message is that to send to the young people, to the people of the Civic Forum, to the people of Northern Ireland as a whole? This is not opposition; this is just dirty party politics.
My party cannot lend even a whimper of support to this motion because of its sheer hypocrisy and negativism. I do warn that if this motion were to succeed, the next step would be the downfall of this Assembly. You and I know that. Everyone here is your target today — every Minister and every institution. You want to be governed by the peripatetic Ministers from Westminster that you girned about for 30 years. You want the part-time Ministers from Westminster to come over, to take four Departments each and to try to deal with them. You cried about it for 30 years, and now you want to go back to it because you have damn all else in your political programme but a return to direct rule. That is all you have. [Interruption]

Mr Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the second time during his rant the Member, who had to be ordered to sit down, has blasphemed and cursed in this House. Will he now withdraw that sort of language and apologise to the Members and the people listening in the Gallery, who are looking for an example from politicians?

Mr Speaker: May I raise three points of order. First, there should not be references to the Gallery from any of the Members. Having said that, I see less folk to play to the Gallery. Perhaps they have other things to do. References to the Gallery are out of order in all circumstances, save where the Speaker finds himself having to reprove people there. That is not very common. Secondly, I urge Members, including the Member who was on his feet, to beware of unparliamentary language.
Thirdly, Members should note that when they use the word "you" they are making reference to the Speaker. I have been accused of many things inside and outside this Chamber, and if I were to regard all that the Member said as being in order, I would have to take unto myself many things that he knows are not my responsibility. I ask the Member to be wary of the language he has been using, both in the sense that some of it may be a little unparliamentary and in that some of it makes references to me which I do not recognise.

Mr Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that advice. I apologise if I have blasphemed against you. That was not intended, and I certainly was not aware that I was guilty of the heinous crime of blasphemy in the language I used. If in the interpretation of some Members I was, then I willingly and gladly withdraw it. I do not want to give offence in that sense; I only want to give offence in the political sense, and say that the negativity of the debate that we heard this morning was without parallel. I do not want to repeat myself, Mr Speaker, in case I fall foul of you again or even use some of the same language again.
This motion is not about the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not about their economic welfare; it is not about their social welfare; it is not about their constitutional welfare. It is a petty, internecine struggle between two power blocs. In fact, it is more personalised than that. We in this Chamber should not be subjected to that; the people of Northern Ireland should not be subjected to that; people who heard or saw the debate this morning, either here in this House or somewhere else, should not be subjected to that.
I am probably speaking to the vacant air, but the biggest gesture that could be made today in this House to establish and confirm the peace and to work with our differences, even in opposition — there is no problem with genuine political opposition — would be for the proposer of this motion to say that the motion is not in order. He has not made any comment about the First Minister as First Minister. He has made comments about him as leader of a party, which is not the business of this House. If the integrity and honesty with which they are trying to bring me to book are the order of the day, I ask him to withdraw the motion.

Mr Seamus Close: I am intrigued by the wording of the motion:
"That this Assembly has no confidence in the First Minister",
with the emphasis on the words "First Minister". My intrigue stems not so much from what was said, but rather from the words that were not used. I am not at all surprised, and I am sure that nobody in this House was surprised, that what I referred to earlier as the "hokey-cokey" party, or the party of political shenanigans, should be expressing no confidence or no trust in someone or other. [Interruption]
I hear a telephone ringing. I thought they were out of order in the House.
As has already been said, the DUP, from its inception, has constantly called no confidence in someone or other. We have had a litany of people having to go. We have had "O’Neill must go", "Chichester-Clark must go", and "Faulkner must go". We then moved on to Secretaries of State. Willy Whitelaw had to go, Merlyn Rees had to go, Mo Mowlam had to go — they all had to go. Even Governors of Northern Ireland suffered the same fate; they were told to go. Moderators of the church were told to go, not to mention His Holiness the Pope. Anybody who tried to bring about change in Northern Ireland was told by the party on my left, the party of political shenanigans, to pack their bags and go.
The previous speaker said that Mr Molyneaux was not told to go, and I think he is correct.
If my memory serves me well, the same Mr Molyneaux was called a Judas. Even he did not please anyone.
It has reached the stage where, if people in authority were not told to go by the Democratic Unionist Party, or if a motion of no confidence were not expressed in them by the Democratic Unionist Party, those people would think that they were doing something very wrong indeed. Can anyone imagine the Democratic Unionist Party calling on someone to stay, or the Democratic Unionist Party having a vote of confidence in anyone? It was demonstrated only a few years ago that at times Members of the DUP do not even have confidence in themselves. They got up and ran away from the negotiations because they lacked confidence, they lacked trust in their ability to argue a case. When we are told that somebody is not endorsed, that problems are being voiced by the Democratic Unionist Party, people should not get particularly concerned. On the contrary, they are in very good company. They are people who have endeavoured, and continue to endeavour, to bring about necessary change in Northern Ireland, and that is very important.
I began by saying that I was intrigued by the wording and by the lack of words in the motion. I note that the motion is one of no confidence in the First Minister expressly. No reference whatsoever was made to the Deputy First Minister yet critically, it is a fact that the First and the Deputy First Ministers were elected on a common slate. Is it not a fact that the Office to which we all must refer, and are duty bound to refer, is the Office of the First and the Deputy First Minister? Maybe they simply neglected to mention the joint Office. But it strikes me, from the wording of the motion, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of confidence in the First Minister. Rather it is the Democratic Unionist Party’s pursuance of a purely party political fight with the Ulster Unionist Party. I think it is wrong. It is disgraceful that this House should be used as a vehicle simply to carry on a party-political feud.
I would go further than that. I do not believe it is just a feud with the Ulster Unionist Party. I believe that in this attempt to attack the First Minister and to ignore the Deputy First Minister lies the real motivation behind all this — that which motivates Members of the Democratic Unionist Party —blind personal ambition: power seeking. They want to obliterate a particular political party completely, and they are prepared to sacrifice democracy, the price that the rest of us would be called on to pay, to satisfy their ambitions. I believe that that is also very wrong. Their motive is not just to destroy the Ulster Unionist Party; their motive is to destroy the Northern Ireland Executive, to destroy the Northern Ireland Assembly, to destroy, most importantly, the voice of the people who put us all here and thus to destroy the voice of democracy. Their motive is the destruction of democracy, because they know what would happen if this motion were passed here this evening. They know, as everyone does, that it would lead to the collapse of the Executive — which would in turn collapse the Assembly — and inevitably to the destruction of devolution and with that the hopes and the desires of the people of Northern Ireland.
Members of the Democratic Unionist Party tell us time and time and time again that they are a party of devolution. I put it to the House that their actions belie that. Why else would they want to tear down this edifice, tear down this Executive and tear down this Assembly? While MrMcGrady was on his feet I heard members of the Democratic Unionist Party, from sedentary positions, refer to this place as a waste of money.
They said that millions were being squandered on democracy in Northern Ireland. However, members of the Democratic Unionist Party express concern about the state of our roads, the rail network, the water and sewerage systems, and the plight of the agricultural community. I must say that their actions in that respect speak louder than their words. How can I accept their references to waste of money, when their actions belie the existence of democracy in Northern Ireland? Their tears are crocodile tears and their concern is shallow. Their words have the stench of hypocrisy.

Mr Robert McCartney: Will the Member tell us what the Assembly has been able to do for the agricultural industry, Harland and Wolff, the declining textile industry or the hauliers? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Mr Seamus Close: Accountable democracy has been one of the main issues for those of us who fought for devolution in Northern Ireland. None of us ever claimed that such accountable democracy would solve all the ills and problems of Northern Ireland. The critical thing, however, is that power rests in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. That is something that my party and I welcome and which I thought the Democratic Unionist Party wanted. Today, however, I learn that they too, like Mr McCartney, are not interested in devolution.

Mr Robert McCartney: I never said I was interested in devolution.

Mr Seamus Close: That is correct, and I accept it. However, the Member now has allies in the Democratic Unionist Party who through this motion declare that they too are a party of integration. I find that very sad. The only reason the Democratic Unionist Party wants to subvert the voice of the people and drag the Assembly down is to remove power from the hands of locally elected representatives. It has taken us 30 years to get devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. Yet on a whim, the Democratic Unionist Party would throw that back in our faces. They complain at the lack of investment, saying it is occasioned by direct rule. What would happen if the motion were passed? It would bring us back to direct rule tomorrow; it would kill devolution. Let us be honest about devolution. Is the Democratic Unionist Party interested in devolution? If so, why do they wish to destroy this institution?

Mr Jim Wells: The hon Member knows from experience that what he says is not true. He and I sat in this Assembly from 1982 to 1986, and both our parties worked tirelessly to bring devolution to the Province. Our objection is not against devolution per se, but against the form of devolution we have, which allows terrorists in the Government. The people of South Antrim showed very clearly that they will not have it.

Mr Seamus Close: The Member knows very well that the path that they attempt to tread with this motion is part of a DUP agenda. That agenda is to get rid of the First Minister, the Executive and the Assembly. What would be the consequence? The consequence would be the end of devolution in Northern Ireland. Members know well that if devolution is killed off this time it will be dead and buried once and for all. It will be the Democratic Unionist Party who will have lent credibility — or will be accused of doing so — to the statement used by enemies of Northern Ireland in the past who said that it was a failed political entity.
The DUP will be giving credence to that type of statement. The message that the Democratic Unionist Party appears to want to send out to the rest of the United Kingdom, Europe and the world is that Northern Ireland is a failed political entity. That is not the message of the Alliance Party; it is not my message or the message of anyone who cherishes, desires and wants to see authority operated by the people of Northern Ireland. It is a message coming from the DUP that will ensure that joint authority is there in all but name, and perhaps in name also.
I will repeat that. The Democratic Unionist Party knows in its heart of hearts that if this motion were passed it would lead to the collapse of the Executive and the Assembly and that that would be the death and burial of devolution. In return we would have joint authority in all but name, and perhaps even in name. That is the betrayal that the Democratic Unionist Party would stand accused of if this motion were passed.
If the DUP continues its kamikaze agenda, based on political stunts and political myopia, it will be guilty of achieving what 30 years of bombing and killing failed to achieve — the destruction of Northern Ireland. It has been said in the past that members of the Democratic Unionist Party were the best allies that Republicanism had. How can you possibly refute that argument if they continue to pursue this particular cause? The Democratic Unionist Party wants to destroy the institutions of self-government. Many other people wanted to achieve that in the past.
I urge the Democratic Unionist Party to think again. I accept that what we have is not perfect, but it is infinitely better than what we would have if it were destroyed. We all have a duty and responsibility to improve the social and economic well-being of all our citizens. This Assembly and the Executive, headed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, are the best vehicles available for us to make progress. There is a responsibility on all of us to use these foundation stones to build a better future.
We must all make progress with a positive agenda. Let us not slide backwards on the slope of this motion. Rather than indulge in a motion of no confidence, I appeal to the Democratic Unionist Party to use its talents positively. I am not asking its members to become nodding dogs, but rather to become more attached rather than semi-detached — to become real Ministers, participating fully in the Executive, trying to improve the institutions rather than destroying them. If meaningful devolution is their honest and sincere goal, if they wish to change what they claim is an imperfect peace— and I agree with them on that— into the real peace that all our citizens yearn for, if they want to construct a future and bury the past, in their hearts and minds they must realise that the opportunities to achieve those very worthy goals exist in this place — in the Executive, in the Committees and in the Assembly. Destroy this place and they destroy the future.

Mr Speaker: Before calling the next Member, I must advise the Assembly of typical generosity on the part of Dr McDonnell. He has indicated that he is prepared to forego the Adjournment debate rather than interrupt the flow of this one or have the Assembly recalled tomorrow solely for his debate.
Even so, we still only have until sixo’clock. I have some 16Members currently on the list to speak, and I ask other Members to show the same generosity of spirit to each other that DrMcDonnell has shown to the Assembly.

Mr Cedric Wilson: While I support the motion in the name of MrRobinson and MrDodds, my party would have preferred — and attempted to put down — an amendment including a vote of no confidence in the entire Executive. That would have included the FirstMinister and the DeputyFirstMinister. No one in Northern Ireland can look at this Assembly and its Executive and have any confidence in anyone who is currently participating in an Executive containing two representatives of Sinn Féin/IRA, which is currently inextricably linked to a terrorist organisation.
It is entirely appropriate that the Assembly should take time to discuss this matter. Members of the Ulster Unionist Party may not like it, but the lack of confidence in MrTrimble in his position as FirstMinister is a view held not just by the Democratic Unionist Party, my party and the other anti-agreement parties in this Chamber, but also, I believe, by the majority of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it is a view held by the majority of his own party. I hope that that will shortly be demonstrated when they curtail his activities in relation to his current policy. It is also held, as has been well documented, by at least half of his parliamentary party. The notion that it is only a small grunt and that there are only a small group of people within this Assembly in the anti-agreement camp is absolute nonsense.
To make the case for the motion today, it is very appropriate — and MrP Robinson dealt with it very competently this morning — to consider how MrTrimble was put in a position to become First Minister in this administration. MrMcGrady, who unfortunately is not now in the Chamber, took the view that people such as the FirstMinister can get elected to this Assembly on the basis of a manifesto. MrTrimble’s manifesto was well and truly put under the spotlight this morning over the pledges he made to the Ulster people who actually went on to vote for his party and his party members. While the focus of attention is on MrTrimble today, there is not one member of the Ulster Unionist Party elected to this Chamber today who did not make the same pledge as every other Unionist in the Chamber: that they would not sit in Government with those who were fully armed and prepared to go back to violence and, indeed, who are currently involved in violence.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be that the Member is misleading the House. Not every Unionist in this Chamber said that.

Mr Cedric Wilson: Those who have been involved in terrorism themselves might not have wished to include that in their election manifesto. It might have been slightly hypocritical to say that they would not sit in Government with bombers and gunmen.
To return to the point, the pledge made by Mr Trimble and his party members before their election to this Assembly was that they would not sit in Government with those who were still inextricably linked to terrorist organisations. He abandoned that policy, much to the disappointment and the opposition of the majority of people within his party, I believe. And yet he has the effrontery to go to the Ulster Unionist Party conference at the Waterfront Hall on Saturday, having outlined in his manifesto that they were all obliged to sign up so that the Unionists would have a veto in the Assembly; that there would be no terrorists in Government; that they had saved the RUC; that there was no Sunningdale, no united Ireland; that the agreement was the death of the frameworks; that the territorial claim of the Irish Republic had gone; and that the Union was strengthened.
Having published a document which sounded like a Unionist utopia, he told his party that there was no Unionist utopia and that it had to get real. Mr Trimble has moved from saying that he did not sign up to this agreement to saying that as he did sign up to it, there is no option but to buy it. The crumbs that are being offered from the tables of the British Prime Minister and Mr Ahern in Dublin — and there will no doubt be a farcical announcement in the next few days of another so-called inspection of arms stocks — will not be sufficient to cover Mr Trimble in the coming days.
The most compelling reason given by Mr P Robinson for a vote of no confidence in Mr Trimble was his pledge that he would not participate in Government with people fronting terrorist organisations. We heard the First Minister trying to distance himself from any involvement in providing cover for anyone trying to improve their armoury and increase their weapons stocks. Mr Trimble played a very significant role in this by not bringing it to the attention of this House. If he had any reservations about the Belfast Agreement, this was the time to say that all bets were off and that he could not support the process any longer because the terrorists were rearming and trying to improve their capability.
My appeal is to those in the Ulster Unionist Party who are not in the Assembly party, because only one or two of the Assembly team are prepared to keep faith with their pledges to the Unionist electorate. Mr Close and Mr McGrady think that we are attempting to hide our objective, but that is not the case. Those of us in the Assembly who are in the anti-agreement camp were elected to bring this process down and to bring the Belfast Agreement to an end. We were elected to end this effrontery to democracy and to end the whole edifice that has been set up here, which ignores the will of the people of Northern Ireland. From day one, when Mr Trimble signed and endorsed the Belfast Agreement, he became the Government placeman, the man who, under all circumstances, was going to make sure that his party continued to work the Belfast Agreement.
There is only one option. If at the end of this debate today the majority of Unionists in the Assembly vote for or against this motion of no confidence, it will not remove Mr Trimble from office. The only people who can do that — and these people have a wider responsibility to the community of Northern Ireland — are those within the Ulster Unionist Party who quite clearly and rightly can determine David Trimble’s future. Just as with Jonah, who was thrown overboard in order to save the boat, I appeal to those in the Ulster Unionist Party to throw Mr Jonah Trimble out of the boat in order to save the very Union itself.
In the days ahead we will require a degree of Unionist unity. I look forward to the time when those in the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party, the UK Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland Unionist Party can come together to finish it off once and for all and to vote out the First and the Deputy First Ministers.
We then set about the task of putting proper structures of democracy in place for all the people of Northern Ireland regardless of colour, class or creed — not this excuse for democracy that has placed representatives of a terrorist organisation in Government. I support the motion and I look forward to the day when we can sit in this House with a proper democratic structure for the people of Northern Ireland.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I suppose "no" is a very easy word to say. Every time my children say that, I tell them they should stop resting in the comfort blanket of the word and start taking some of the responsibility that goes with growing up. "No, we will not agree." "No, we will not take a risk." "No, we will not compromise." It is no, no, no, no, no.
How sick do we have to get in this Chamber of hearing that tiny little tiny word being endlessly repeated? Instead, they should credit those who take the courage — and indeed it is a risk to have the courage — to say "yes" because that involves making a change and taking the responsibility for making that change. God knows that Northern Ireland and those who lived through the past 20 or 30 years of horror in this country will know how much we value that change.
Some days I stand in this Chamber and try to imagine if people really went through what we went through. They call these the bad days, the awful days of trying to implement a very difficult peace process. Of course it is hard, but the mandate of the people still stands. It is above any single party’s election results. Much as I congratulate Dr McCrea on his recent election, that is all it is. It is a single party’s success at a recent election, and this agreement is above any single party’s success, even if that Member flits from one constituency to another.
I have heard a great deal of talk about confidence and lack of confidence. I ask Members to focus on achievement. What have we achieved? Indeed, what did the Ulster Unionists and the Progressive Unionist Party achieve? They achieved an acceptance that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland will be determined by the will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It will stand until there is a referendum, but that is the most prized possession of all for Unionism. Let it be repeated over and over and over again.
They also won the removal of articles 2 and 3, and as someone who sat for two years in the negotiations it seemed to me that that was a prized possession. The pro-agreement Unionists won the removal of articles 2 and 3. Indeed, I have to tell you that when I went out to the streets, villages and towns during the referendum campaign I expected to be asked about articles 2 and 3 by people who had a great deal to fear during the years when those articles were in the Irish Constitution. However, it was almost as though that was that. They had been ticked off. People had moved on, and people had forgotten. Well, let us not forget that it took a major effort and an international treaty to abolish articles 2 and 3.
What else was achieved? I agree with Mr Close that those who fought long and hard for devolved administration almost forget that it was the people on the anti-agreement side and the DUP in particular — who put down this motion — who seemed to want that more than anything. They spoke in the negotiations about what a new Northern Ireland Assembly might look like and it probably is the case that only Mr McCartney would not see that as an achievement.
Again, why is it that the Ulster Unionists and the Progressive Unionists have to fight alone to see another achievement in the British-Irish Council and everything that was in the agreement on social and economic progress, on process of reconciliation, and on law and order?
It is not surprising that we have a great deal of debate and division over the issue of law and order. It probably relates more than anything to what went on before the agreement and to the wishes of those who also want to see change. Indeed, the officers of the RUC have said that they have signed up to that change.
It was not a case of whether there would be change, but of how that change would take place. There are many issues in the agreement that are reflected in today’s debate of "confidence" or "no confidence". Should the police force be pluralist in its identity? Should it be representative in its composition? Should it be even-handed in its operation? Yes, yes and yes. When it is implemented, it will, and should, be all of those things. Let us not talk about bringing down any agreement on the back of something that we all want — to be representative, inclusive and even-handed in the future of our policing.
I am also greatly concerned that the flags issue has again created some notion that there is no confidence in the agreement and in the First Minister. Unionism won an important battle on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The agreement stated that sovereignty would be exercised with rigorous impartiality, not only in its operational terms but also in recognition of our symbolic diversity. Who ever said that that would be easy? If all the identities in this country are valid, then so too are all our symbols.
Power-sharing goes further than the Executive deciding what ministerial posts will be handed out. It goes as far as talking of how the space for diverse symbols and identities will be shared, painful though that may be. Continued refusal to share is what threatens the agreement most. If anything threatens it, it is that constant refusal:"I will not share. I will not share positions in the Executive, I will not share my viewpoint with you, and I will not share power with you."

Ms Jane Morrice: Does the Member agree that although the "No" camp tells us that the agreement is fatally flawed, it has to say that because it will be out of business if the agreement works? The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, of which Dr Paisley is Chairperson, has met more times than any other Committee in this Assembly, and it has Sinn Féin members on it. Coming in a close second for the number of meetings held is the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, of which Mr Pat Doherty is the Chairperson, and which has DUP members on it. Can anyone then explain the logic of the DUP position of not sharing?

Prof Monica McWilliams: No doubt the Member knows, like myself, that fear has no logic, and clearly the DUP is afraid. It is the only party in the Assembly that I see shaking in its boots every time it is mentioned that it is in the Executive. It worries, jumps or cringes at the idea of somebody constantly repeating that rotating Ministers is not fooling anybody. DUP members are in it; they will stay in it and they love it.
People may have reservations. Everybody who signed the agreement had something in it for themselves, and there was obviously going to be something in it for others. People have reservations about the sections they did not place themselves. The Women’s Coalition also has reservations.
I am delighted to see the Civic Forum finally taking place today. I do not care who takes the credit for the Civic Forum; it is more important to my party that it has finally been established. Surely that is the stand that every Member should start to take. People should be big enough to not worry about whether a piece was for them or for someone else. In the end, what matters is that it was for the people of Northern Ireland.
If we continue to do this — and I have said this before — it is little wonder that people make jokes on David Dunseith’s programme about Ulster not being at the crossroads but at the roundabout going around in circles. Every time a motion of no confidence is laid at the foot of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, or jointly, we are led around and around. The parties that are leading us straight on are those that still believe in the agreement. It will work, and it shall work.

Mr Robert McCartney: David Trimble is the First Minister. He is also the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. The first of these offices, under the Belfast Agreement, requires him to serve on institutions and to carry out policies that are totally inconsistent with the declared objectives of the party of which he is the Leader and as have been described in its manifesto. His difficulty is that he is never sure whether he is Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde, so in his absence I will endeavour to address both his personalities.
We heard the canting piety of Mr McGrady about the behaviour in the Chamber. Has Mr McGrady any memory of Michael Heseltine seizing the Mace and swinging it round in the House of Commons? Has he ever seen the differences of opinion and the vigour with which they are demonstrated in the German Bundesrat, the French National Assembly or the Italian Assembly? Has he anything to say about the vigour and differences of opinion that were demonstrated during the Danish referendum? To talk this nonsense in such a holier-than-thou tone about how we behave in the Chamber is a measure of our parochialism and his.
As for Monica McWilliams, she makes a virtue out of saying "Yes". Through the years everybody knows — at least, every parent knows — that the easiest thing to say is "Yes". I have found it extremely difficult to say "No". When you say "No" you are called everything from a warmonger to a rejectionist Unionist, an enemy of the people to a dinosaur. You are called all these things. When you say "Yes" you get maximum exposure on the BBC, you are featured in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, and you are virtually canonised in the ‘News Letter’. So I can assure Monica that it is extremely difficult, very tiresome and sometimes wounding to say "No". You say "No", however, because you believe that there are certain things such as taking sweets from strangers or gifts from Bertie Ahern to which it is very dangerous to say "Yes".
In May 1998 the Ulster Unionist Party published a document entitled ‘Understanding the Agreement’. In view of David Trimble’s revelations in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ last week, I wonder if he understood the agreement. The full text of ‘Understanding the Agreement’ was accompanied by a simplified synopsis for the slow readers in the Ulster Unionist Party, and it was entitled ‘Ulster Unionists Say Yes’. It is not clear, however, whether these documents represent an understanding of the agreement which David signed up to or of the one he did not sign up to.
What is now perfectly clear is that the Ulster Unionist understanding of the agreement as demonstrated in these documents is entirely different from that of the Irish Government, the SDLP, Sinn Féin/IRA and, saddest of all, the British Government. Perhaps this is due to what David described in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ as "constructive ambiguity", which means that if an agreement is totally ambiguous, it is open to all parties to it to construct whatever meaning they choose.
David, for his sins, is not only a politician. He was also, once upon a time, a law lecturer, and in that guise he taught students the basic principles of that discipline. Two of the most basic principles, curiously enough, relate to agreements. They are known to every first-year law student and every rookie barrister. The first principle is that the parties to any agreement must have a shared understanding of its contents, its nature and its consequent effects. The second principle is that no party to a multiparty agreement can add to, alter, vary or amend the terms of that agreement without the consent of all the other parties to it. David now confesses that the agreement that he thought he was signing was different from the one being implemented.
Of course poor David knew all along that what he was signing was not what SinnFéin, in particular, were signing up to. David knew, as every party to the negotiations knew, that 24hours before this dastardly document was signed SinnFéin threatened to walk if the terms of that agreement obliged them to give any undertaking that the IRA would decommission, or that SinnFéin would suffer any sanction if it failed to do so. As a result, we had a paragraph in the decommissioning section of the agreement that specifically stated that SinnFéin was in the same category as all the other parties, including the democratic parties — the SDLP, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party. All the parties were put under an obligation to use their influence to bring about decommissioning by 22May2000. Nowhere in that agreement was any sanction imposed on SinnFéin for failing to do so. There was no criterion by which anyone could determine whether SinnFéin had used its influence to bring about such a result. There were certainly no sanctions, such as exclusion, if it failed to bring about that result.
"Davy boy" knew all this. He knew it as a politician and he knew it as a lawyer. He now complains that he did not understand the first basic principle, which is that the parties to any agreement must have a consensus ad idem, a shared understanding of what they were agreeing to. Neither side was agreeing to what the other intended, so we had this novel concept of constructive ambiguity. It is a result, because everybody gets what they want. When, ultimately, the ambiguity has to be resolved, someone is left with the short straw. In this case, it was poor Davy.
That was not the only principle that he breached. The second principle is that no single party to an agreement can alter, vary or amend a multiparty agreement without the consent of all. That was breached when David naively went to his friend Tony, who told him not to worry and that he would give him a letter of comfort which would contain all the pledges that he had made: there would be no terrorists in government until they finally put away their weapons and declared permanent peace; and no prisoners would be released until all these obligations were fulfilled. Tony said that, by decommissioning, he meant that simply the handing over of arms but — and he emblazoned it on the front of that awful newspaper the ‘News Letter’ — an end to all beatings, intimidation and all the other terrible things.
Tony said "David, go thou forth and tell all the people in the Ulster Unionist Party and all their chums and friends that I have said unto you that if Sinn Féin/IRA do not perform all these wondrous miracles I will step in, and like Jupiter or Zeus, I will put an end to all of this." That was nonsense, and David knew that it was nonsense. However, poor David, all of this having been dashed from his lips, now says "This is wrong, Tony; this is not the agreement I signed up to, and that you promised." There is a word — a very expressive word — to describe David Trimble’s behaviour in these circumstances. It is "gombeen" — a political gombeen to buy into all this nonsense.
Where does all this stand with his fitness to be First Minister or the lack of confidence in him as a First Minister? In any democracy, if a Prime Minister, a Taoiseach, a Premier, or whatever he is called, misleads his people, if he is elected under false pretences as to what he is going to do, if he shows a blundering incompetence in negotiating on the people’s behalf, if he does not understand the basic principles of his own profession, let alone the politics, people might be persuaded to say "This is not a man in whom we can have a great deal of confidence as the First Minister, who is supposed to be leading the administration that purports to be for the manifest betterment and welfare of our people."
I think it is entirely logical that there should be a question mark over the Assembly’s confidence in a man who has been deceived, who has been proved to be naively gullible, who has failed to understand the fundamental principles of negotiation and who now declares that what he signed up to was not really what he thought it was. If this does not justify the questioning of the competence and ability of such a person to be the First Minister of what passes for a democratic institution, then I do not know what does, despite what Mr McGrady says.
Let me very briefly review some of David’s understanding of what the agreement offered to him and why Ulster Unionists should say "Yes". The Union would be strengthened. Is there anyone in this Assembly who seriously believes that Sinn Féin, let alone the SDLP, would have signed up to an agreement which, according to Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, and all those other laser-like minds in the Ulster Unionist Party, as well as Mr Trimble’s, decreed that the majority would rule, that the Union would be put beyond debate and that they would be given a veto over anything that other Members of the Assembly might decide? Anyone who seriously believes that, Mr Speaker, is in need of your assistance, not as the Speaker but in your professional capacity as a psychiatrist.
Then comes the second point, that there would be no unreformed terrorists in Government. The agreement makes a provision that any parties that have not begun decommissioning will be excluded and removed from the ministerial Executive of the Assembly when it comes into full operation. That was a point that Mr Trimble confirmed in the debate which took place, I think, on 15 December 1998 when every Unionist, bar, I think, those in the Progressive Unionist Party, voted unanimously in favour of the motion that day.
Members all know Fred Cobain. Fred was singled out for special approbation. "Well done, Fred" said the Leader at the party conference last Saturday. "Well done, Fred." During the drafting and preparation of that motion (which Mr Cobain, the Leader, and the Minister of the Environment supported with a hairy-chested vigour) Mr Cobain must have said to me 50 times "My bottom line, Bob" — and with that he put out his five o’clock shadow jaw — "is no guns, no government." Where is his bottom line now? It is a pity he is not here because I would say "Well done, Fred."
The agreement is the death of the framework document. John Major, whose Government were responsible for the careful drafting of the framework document and who, through Patrick Mayhew, conducted the first year of the negotiations, has since stated publicly on Sky television, while promoting his book, that the Belfast Agreement is his framework document with knobs on it. According to David, this agreement is the death of the framework document.
Eire’s territorial claim will be surrendered. Ms McWilliams was at pains to tell us at length what a great achievement it was to have this amendment. It is an amendment that apparently turns what the Republic’s Supreme Court described as a constitutional imperative into an aspiration. In 1985, Garret FitzGerald was telling me personally, and others publicly, that an aspiration was all it ever was. It was only four years later, in 1989, that the Supreme Court apparently put him right and told him that it was a constitutional imperative. We are now back to an aspiration. Who in their right mind would not give up a claim for a factual down payment in the governance of the country to which you make that claim— and that is what this is really all about.
Maryfield will go. When I read this, I could hardly believe it. In exchange for removing Maryfield from the most inconspicuous up-a-country-lane locus, they have brought it down and lodged it in one of the major business forums in the centre of Belfast.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member give way?

Mr Robert McCartney: No.
I understand that the work force down there has been increased. It is going, Mr Speaker, but it is only going to a more prominent and effective place.
No united Ireland — this is no Sunningdale. Of course, when Michael Mates went as a special spokesman to the States — and being a rather foolish man he thought he could express his mind there, not realising it would be transmitted back to Northern Ireland — he said (and here he echoed the words of his Leader, John Major) that what they were going to get in this agreement was Sunningdale with knobs on it. And it was.
There is no licence to terrorists. We all know that they certainly are licensed. They have all been got out.
What about the enforcement of the rule of law? What about the policemen and policewomen who lost their lives putting these people behind bars? What about the judges, guarded 24 hours a day, some of whom lost their lives and some who were gravely injured? These are the people who see the rule of law turned into a judicial farce. They see people like Caraher and McGinn, who pulled the trigger and murdered 12 men including Lance Bombardier Restorick, out after 18 months. They see, on the loyalist side, the brutal killers of young James Morgan — battered to death with a hammer and flung into a pit for diseased animals — and with a very tenuous connection with any paramilitary organisation released after 18 months. This is what the agreement has bought us. Perhaps there is no licence for the terrorists. There is not only a licence to terrorists, there is a licence that has seen them expand paramilitary criminality to new heights, to Mafia-like proportions involving huge sums of money.
We now see a turf war being fought on the Shankill between competing paramilitaries, both of whom, the UDP and the PUP, were used by the FirstMinister to get his office with their votes. Now we see the UFF, the military wing of the UDA, represented by the UDP, and the UVF, the military wing of MrErvine’s party, murdering, maiming, exiling, intimidating and emptying houses all over the place.
And who did this First Minister, in whom we are to have confidence, put down as one of his nominees in the wonderful Civic Forum? GaryMcMichael, Leader of the UDP, the front organisation for the UFF and the UDA. Marvellous, what a giant leap forward for democracy in Northern Ireland. The RUC has been saved— well, I am not even going to mention that.
Let me say in closing that the First Minister has demonstrated political incompetence as a negotiator. He has misled the people of Northern Ireland. He has failed to understand an agreement which the vast bulk of the professional members of his own negotiating team told him not to sign, warning him of the dangers, but he went ahead. If all these failures do not add up to a substantial deficit in his competence, I do not know what would. All I can say is that under his leadership — and I adapt the words of WinstonChurchill — "Never in the history of democracy has the constitutional welfare of so many been sacrificed for the financial betterment of so few."

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I want to be brief, but some things were said by the FirstMinister this morning that need to be answered. He told us that he alone in his party defended the police. He said that my deputy and MrMcCartney were absent from debates. He said it was in the House of Commons that this battle for the police should be fought. I agree that the fight had to happen in Westminster. What I do not like is men like MrTrimble and MrTaylor coming over here, getting columns in the press and informing people that the other Unionists do not attend Westminster. That, my friend, I nail as a lie. I have the books here so that we can look at what happened at the debate. There was a Second Reading at the debate where PeterRobinson spoke. PeterRobinson and I voted and, to my memory, MrMcCartney was also present. That first debate was on 6 June. Then we had an allocation of time debate on 11July. Both myself and and PeterRobinson spoke and voted, and so did MrMcCartney. At the Report Stage there were three votes and PeterRobinson and I voted on every division. At the end of the debate there were no speeches for the Third Reading, but my Colleague and I voted.
Where were the members of MrTrimble’s party? Were they all lined up to march through the Lobby? Anyone who wants to look at Hansard will see that this morning the First Minister completely misled this House and the people of Northern Ireland, who were seeing and hearing it as it was reported. Of course he wanted to get in before lunch time and then get away. We have not seen him at the debate the afternoon.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon Member agree that the best way to save the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the best way in which the fight can be fought and won in the House of Commons, is to make sure that at the next election the Unionist people return Members of Parliament whom they can trust? They need Unionist Members of Parliament who will turn up and do the job. Members of our party are prepared to do that job in the House of Commons.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I agree. I cannot say "No" to that; I can say "Yes".
Mr Trimble held up an ancient piece of paper from the time when we were dragged out of the Chamber. We were dragged out illegally; the police had no place in the building. That was verified later. We were brought out and thrown down the steps outside by RUC members. I am not sure whether they were RUC members; every one of them had an English accent. Those matters were raised at the time. The womenfolk and the young people who were there supporting us had been abused, physically and verbally, by the members of the RUC, speaking in English tones. The women were called "Orange whores" and "Orange bastards". That was the language that poured out of them. I said to them that night that if that was how they were going to behave they could not expect me, as a public representative, to stand in their defence when their homes were attacked. The First Minister alleged that I excused or lent favour to the criminality of attacking policemen’s homes — nothing of the sort.
Let us look at the record of the Ulster Unionist Party representatives. I have sat in the House of Commons for 30 years. In my early days I was a leper, because I had the same sort of victory in North Antrim as my good friend has had in South Antrim; they would not speak to me. In fact, one of them told me to sit quietly. I said "You’ll be doing better than my wife. She can’t get me to sit quietly." I defended the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the House of Commons. I went to Europe to oppose the Haagerup Report. It was a wicked report conceived with the help of Irish Republicanism to damn the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I was the only Member who opposed it. Mr Taylor had his 40-foot barge pole; he was nowhere to be seen. I have every respect for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but I have no respect for members who dishonour the uniform, and dishonour what it should stand for.
In the middle of the debate, Sam Foster suddenly showed some energy. I was amazed. He jumped up and said he wanted to intervene, and so he did. My Friend let him intervene — to his cost, because he had time cut off by you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this intervention. Sam Foster read us a lecture.
On 15 December 1998 Mr Foster said
"We are talking about setting up bodies and Departments — that is ridiculous before decommissioning. We are being asked to set up a Government in spite of the fact that we know that, outside in the undergrowth, there are weapons and equipment ready to be used — a gun-to-the-head attitude. Is that what we are being asked to do? Are we being asked to govern in spite of the fact that there are illegal armies and equipment out there?
"Mr Presiding Officer, do you really feel that you could preside over a Government? Would it be credible or incredible? Would it be a credible or incredible Assembly? Would it be dishonest or honest? Would it be deceit or falsehood or a lack of integrity? Are there no morals whatsoever?"
That was not Ian Paisley, by the way; it was the mighty Samuel Foster. Surely we cannot begin to govern until there is decommissioning, when I hope peace will be actioned. Sam held forth today in defence of his First Minister, but it was because my deputy stripped the rags of deceit off the First Minister that poor Mr Foster saw his own rags coming off, and he jumped for a fig leaf to try to cover his imminent nakedness.
We have heard strange speeches today. I have known Eddie McGrady for many years. I never saw him in a tantrum until today. I was amazed at his use of the word "God", and the other things that he said, but I realise that he is trying to outdo Sinn Féin — out-Sinn Féin the Sinn Féiners — and so he had to use those tactics. Today we saw that he was after something entirely different. All the Members from those Benches, including the mighty Mr Close, said that we want to bring down the Assembly. Mr David Trimble told us today that we want to uphold the Assembly. We are the greatest safeguard that the Assembly has. I was amazed by some things that were said today.
We are not defending violence. We are seeking to defend our people from violence. That violence is there. Sam Foster is right, it is hidden away, ready to be released upon us. When the concessions cease, the bombs and the shootings and the Omaghs will recommence. That is the fact of the matter. After what was discovered in America, Mr Trimble should have taken steps and said "Enough is enough". These men are arming. They are getting the guns in. What for? To kill innocent victims, as they have done hitherto. It is time to call a stop to it. We have our resignations ready, Mr Trimble. What about you? Sign up today, and deliver this Province from the curse that has fallen upon it.

Mr George Savage: I oppose the motion. It is pointless and a waste of time, and it is an insult to the people who elected us to serve them in this Assembly. In recent weeks we have debated a wide range of issues affecting the day-to-day life of Ulster people, such as fuel tax, retailing, local community nursing, and pensions. Those were constructive debates about things that really matter. Our constituents can look to this place and say "Yes, our elected representatives are working for us. They care about our hospitals, they care about our schools, they care about our future."
And then what happens? The DUP, under Mr P Robinson’s leadership, are back to their old games. They are not prepared to knuckle down to the work required of elected officers. They exist only to fight elections, and spend the rest of their time engaging in silly gimmicks. This is just another in a long list. I am told that there is only one policeman in Ballykissangel. Perhaps it is time now for one of those famous night raids.
The proposer of the motion went to lengths to blind us with his parliamentary knowledge. He suggested that motions of no confidence are practically everyday business in the House of Commons. Perhaps if he spent more time in the House of Commons he might be able to base his comments on his own experience rather than relying on his researchers to scramble through manuals of procedure to justify his actions.
The motion of no confidence will fail, but will the DUP accept that decision when it comes? Will it say "Fine, the Assembly has rejected our motion and we must respect that"? Of course it will not, because in public it does not accept the right of this Assembly to exist. The DUP is opposed to power-sharing. It wants majority rule. However, it is the minority party in the Assembly. By contrast, my party can legitimately claim to represent the greater number of people in this Province.
Has it occurred to Mr Peter Robinson that my party Leader is First Minister for the simple reason that he is the Leader of the largest party in the Assembly? He has the confidence of those who matter — those who voted him into the job. If the Leader of the Democratic Unionist Party truly has no confidence in the First Minister and therefore in the Assembly itself, why does he not instruct his Colleagues to withdraw? What are they doing here if they have no confidence in the place? They are doing what they have always done best — milking the system for their own petty advantage.
I have confidence in the First Minister. He is the First Minister of a Northern Ireland over which there is no longer a territorial claim from the Republic of Ireland. He is the First Minister of a Northern Ireland which is no longer governed by the Order in Council. He is the First Minister of a Northern Ireland which is no longer controlled by the Anglo-Irish Secretariat. These are his achievements, backed up and supported by those who really believe in devolved government. He is also First Minister in a power-sharing Government. How easy it would have been for him and us to run away from the acceptance of the make-up of this society, to run away from the issue of decommissioning and to run away from the challenges presented by the Patten Report. How easy it would have been to be a member of the Democratic Unionist Party.
Perhaps Mr Robinson would be more honest if he were to table a motion of no confidence in his party’s part-time Ministers. How much confidence has he in them? Why does he not let them attend meetings with their counterparts at Westminster, Edinburgh and Cardiff? Is he worried that a wrong word might be said in the wrong place?
Confidence, like charity, begins at home. The First Minister of the Assembly has confidence in himself to achieve peace and prosperity in this country. He has the confidence of his party and of his people. He has my every confidence. I have been privileged to be chairman of the Upper Bann Ulster Unionist Association under two fine public representatives. One was the late Harold McCusker, and the second is David Trimble, our current Member of Parliament. Harold McCusker famously called for my party to be a proactive party. David Trimble wears that mantle proudly and confidently.
Many Members had the opportunity to negotiate. I have listened closely to the speeches from Mr McCartney and from many of our Colleagues on my right. If their negotiating skills were so great, why did they not use them? Why did they run away? Let me quote a number of things, for I read the paper like everybody else. This is from a speech made by Mr McCartney, who I am sorry is not present to hear it but whose memory I want to jog:
"I’m all for power-sharing with the Catholic community, but I would have the greatest possible objections to sharing power with the Democratic Unionist Party."
Those are not my words; those are Mr McCartney’s words. Many things have happened over the years, but I ask one thing: prior to the setting up of the Assembly, how many lives were lost?
I have another question. Since this Assembly was set up —

Mr Tom Benson: Will the Member give way?

Mr George Savage: No, I will not give way. I do not treat anybody differently. Since this Assembly was set up, has the standard of life in Northern Ireland not been a lot better than before? What value do we put on a life? All of us can make a contribution. The contributions made over the past years have been enormous. It is the one thing that we cannot back away from. I served on the security forces for 14 years and I am not ashamed of it. I was catcalled many times by many people. If one life has been saved since this Assembly was set up, then that is something we have achieved and it is something we can look forward to.
I could quote many things. I have a fairly good working relationship with the leader of another party. I believe that if we manage to achieve an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and a democratic Government is set up in Northern Ireland, the matter of prisoners would have to be looked at very closely, with the various considerations being weighed in the balance.

Mr Speaker: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr George Savage: There are many things that we can quote, but the most fundamental thing that the Assembly has brought about is peace in our land. I hope that that will continue.

Mr John Dallat: Only one thing is clear from today’s debate, and that is that the DUP has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. The motion reveals the nauseating bankruptcy of those behind it, but I would be the last to describe PeterRobinson as a parrot. After all, the DUP reserves that particular title for Her Majesty the Queen. That is the problem with the DUP. They have no qualms about getting involved in the most outrageous stunts, but they never accept responsibility for their actions. I am sure that when the papers are printed tomorrow, it will go unnoticed that when this debate was reaching a crescendo earlier, not all the DUP Members were present.
One was at a meeting in another part of this building, sitting with a member of Sinn Féin and eating sandwiches. And what were they discussing? — the Members’ pensions. They were discussing the nest egg for the future, but there are 3,500people who will not have a nest egg because they are gone. They are gone because of the bankrupt policies of the DUP.
Twenty-seven years ago they had no confidence in the Unionist Leader of the day, the late BrianFaulkner. To them he was a real Judas, sharing power with the dreaded SDLP — no SinnFéin. Brian Faulkner had caved in to one man, one vote, had put Catholics into senior positions in the North’s first power-sharing Assembly and promised reforms on employment, housing and other issues which affected not only Nationalists but — dare I say it — ordinary working- class Protestants as well. "Faulkner must go" was the war cry, as men donned their Ulster Resistance berets, climbed mountains with phoney gun permits and sent the message round the world that Northern Ireland was the last place to invest in. But they did worse than that: they fertilised the soil on which the blood of thousands of people, both Catholic and Protestant, was spilt, and they would do it again and again for their selfish interest. They used ordinary decent people as cannon fodder. To me, that is as close to a war crime as you can get.
For many people the stunts are over — too many have lost their lives. Tens of thousands have been injured, both physically and mentally. Our society has been denuded of young people who bought a one-way ticket and left, never to return. Many of them were from the Unionist community. There are too many tombstones in towns and villages across the North, all bearing messages of failure from the past: "An Innocent Victim of the Troubles", "Murdered by Terrorists", "Killed in Action". It does not really matter what the circumstances were; none of them should have died and none of them would have died if common sense had prevailed.
Always, always, there has been one common denominator. If someone in a position of influence in the Unionist community was seen to be showing any kind of leadership that would lead to a new political dimension in which everyone was involved on an equal footing, he had to go. Members of the DUP are always the ones to sound the war cry that someone must go, and today is no different.
But today is different because the electorate is learning that without compromise there is less likelihood of political stability and that evil people will fill any vacuum and re-create the horrors of the past. No one wants that, but surely if we cannot learn from the mistakes of the past we have to be held accountable for what happens in the future. This Assembly was elected to serve the people of Northern Ireland, to pick up the pieces and to offer leadership for future generations. It was severely handicapped by the last suspension which served no purpose other than to give dissident elements, both Republican and Loyalist, the kiss of life: a kiss of life which ultimately meant the kiss of death for others. I think in particular of Omagh where 31people were killed, two of them still to be born.
Given the opportunity, the SDLP will not be found wanting in its determination to build bridges, not only in this Assembly but in every town and village throughout Northern Ireland. Together with our Colleagues on the Unionist Benches, we will implement policies which offer new hope and a new kind of dignity and social inclusion for all our people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close. Standing Orders require that we finish by six o’clock, and we still have the start of the winding-up speech. [Interruption]

Mr John Dallat: Mr Speaker, I notice that the people on the DUP Bench are particularly pleased that you have instructed me to finish.
Let me end by saying this: the inevitable tide of common sense will sweep away both the DUP and the backward calls it represents. It will continue to sweep across this land, nourishing it, strengthening it, washing away our bloodstained past. Those who are of the past, like all those who offer our society little more than a return to the darkness of before, will languish in the history books. There is perhaps just one cry that should go out now: it is time for the DUP to go.

Mr Nigel Dodds: To those parties who claimed this was all a terrible waste of time, I say that this is probably the best turnout we have had at this time of day in the Assembly for weeks, if not months. I thank Members for coming along, and I am glad that they were able to attend rather than pay lip service to the idea that the debate served no useful purpose. Those who claimed it was of no use, but participated in it, gave the lie to that. The DUP is listening to the Unionist grass roots and reflecting what people on the ground are saying. One should never forget that the Ulster Unionists who sit in the Assembly do not even represent half their own party. They claim to speak for a majority of Unionists, but they do nothing of the sort.
We have every right to put down such a motion. Indeed, it is our duty to do so, in the light of what has happened. There has been a lack of movement over decommissioning, despite pledges made by the First Minister specifically to get the Assembly and the Executive up and running again. It was incumbent on us to table the motion in the light of the destruction of the RUC — which is also happening despite pledges from the First Minister — and of the people’s verdict on the agreement. The deputy Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party said that whatever way South Antrim voted, the rest of the country would follow. We are simply reflecting what Unionist people are saying. This process was founded on the basis that it had the consent of both communities, yet it patently lacks the support of the Unionist community.
I listened to the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the Women’s Coalition and all the rest of them. None of them defended the First Minister, but attacked the Democratic Unionists instead. That was not surprising, since hardly anyone from the Ulster Unionist Benches took the time to defend the First Minister either. At most times, three quarters of their Members were absent. The Chief Whip of the Ulster Unionist Party said before the debate that he expected every Ulster Unionist elected to the Assembly to support the Leader. They have been fairly conspicuous by their silence today. We shall see if everyone elected as an Ulster Unionist goes through the Lobbies, because it was clear from the vote in July that on the main policy — to have IRA/Sinn Féin in Government without guns being handed over — not only has Mr Trimble lost support in his own party, but he cannot command even 45% of the Unionist votes in the Assembly. Ulster Unionist Members supported having Sinn Féin in Government. If they go through the Lobbies in support of Mr Trimble, they are supporting Sinn Féin’s continued presence in the Government of Northern Ireland.
Some people have told us that we should not have this debate, because we are interfering in the internal affairs of the Ulster Unionist Party, despite the fact that the motion relates to Mr Trimble’s position as First Minister. It is all right, of course, for Mary Harney to issue declarations telling us not to dump Mr Trimble. It is all right for Mr Ahern, to say in the ‘News Letter’ "Please save Mr Trimble." It is all right for Mr Major to be dragged out of semi-retirement, for Peter Mandelson to plead for people to preserve Mr Trimble, and for Mitchel McLaughlin to be wheeled out on behalf of Sinn Féin to say his bit. Mr Mallon, along with MrMcGrady, attempted today to speak up for Mr Trimble when his party Colleagues would not — and perhaps could not — do so.
This is not an abuse of the House, nor anything like it. In the Business Committee, Mr Close’s party agreed to the tabling of the motion. In fact, it was agreed unanimously, so all those who believe that it was an abuse of the House’s procedures should perhaps speak to their representatives on the Business Committee.
No defence was made against the charges brought by Mr Peter Robinson in his speech. For Mr Trimble, it was a case of blaming everyone but himself. He blamed the weather, the electorate, the media, and the other parties for the defeat in South Antrim. Now he has even gone so far as to say, in ‘The Daily Telegraph’ last week, that he should not be associated with what is currently going on, since it is not the agreement he signed up to.
When it comes to the RUC it is not the Ulster Unionist Party who is to blame. Apparently it is Mr Patten, in spite of the fact that Mr Trimble and his party signed up to an agreement that set the terms and remit of the Patten Commission. This flows inexorably and inevitably from those terms and the remit set out in the Belfast Agreement, as we warned at the time that it would.
When it comes to decommissioning he is running round saying "Do not blame us; blame the IRA." If it were not for Mr Trimble there would be no Executive today with IRA/Sinn Féin in Government, the IRA still having refused to decommission. It is Mr Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party who are directly and solely responsible for having Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún as Ministers in the Government; for having the arms retained; for the RUC being destroyed; and for this all-Ireland system of government, with executive authority.
Of course, we had the old red herring about the DUP seeking to mislead people — this from a man who claims pride for constructive ambiguity. Talk about having a central policy for misleading people. Do not speak the truth — it must be constructive ambiguity. So much for plain speaking, telling people the truth and where he stands. He quoted from the DUP manifesto — the only sound part of his speech, and we thank him for that. He then argued that the DUP is fully in this system. Mr McGrady, Mr Close, Ms McWilliams and the rest then criticised the DUP for not being fully part of the system, for being semi-detached and trying to bring the whole thing down. Yet Mr Trimble was saying that we do not want it to collapse, we want to keep it in being. It is time these pro-agreement parties decided what sort of attack to mount if they are going to attack the DUP instead of coming out with the nonsense that they do at the moment. They are in disarray not only in the country; they are in disarray even in this House.
The reality is that the DUP has adopted an honourable and principled position, in keeping with its election manifesto pledges. Members may not like this, but that was, and has been, endorsed overwhelmingly in the European election and in South Antrim, and every time we go to the people they endorse it again.
We have no apology to make for boycotting the North/South Ministerial Council and for boycotting the Executive, as long as IRA/Sinn Féin is there. We are proud of the fact that we give up our ministerial salaries. Our Ministers and Committee Chairmen are not benefiting one iota from their positions. They give up their salaries and put them into our election fighting fund and our fighting fund against the agreement. It is a pity that some Members who are so proud about their gambling exploits would not put theirs to better use as well. We are here to oppose Sinn Féin, as we do in local government, in Westminster and as we would in the European Parliament if they had seats there.
Let us come to policing. My hon Friend Dr Paisley has already dealt with the lies that MrTrimble told in the House earlier and with his deceit when he accused my party Colleagues of not being present when in fact they were. There has been no decommissioning from the IRA. The recent report in ‘The Times’ showed that the weapons dumped by the IRA are obsolete ones — they are of absolutely no use. Mr Taylor, the Official Unionist deputy Leader, who is conspicuous by his absence from the House — some support that for his Leader — says that the IRA will not hand over any weapons. I am glad that he now acknowledges what the DUP has been saying all along. The IRA has no intention of decommissioning.
To bring Sinn Féin/IRA into the Executive was simply to reward it for its intransigence. The IRA has no intention of decommissioning, yet Mr Trimble has brought it into the Executive. He has allowed terrorists to be released; there has been an amnesty for IRA terrorists on the run; the RUC is being destroyed; the flying of the Union flag on Government buildings is being made illegal; our culture is being eroded; all-Ireland structures of government have been created; and security is being run down. All those are good reasons to vote for this motion today.
Question put.
The Assembly divided: 
AYES
Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson. [Tellers: David Hilditch and Gardiner Kane]
NOES
Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Alex Attwood, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Sam Foster, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Kieran McCarthy, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Dermot Nesbitt, Danny O’Connor, Eamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Brid Rodgers, George Savage, David Trimble, Jim Wilson. [Tellers: David McClarty and Eugene McMenamin]
Question accordingly negatived.
Adjourned at 6.14 pm.